Dune

Spoiler-free!

The most immediate thought that springs to mind when I think of how to break down Denis Villeneuve's adaptation of Dune into something that can qualify how I recommend it, is that it's a movie for fans. It doesn't gatekeep; anyone can be a fan. But you must be willing to invest, and to pay attention. If it does its job right, it will bring the uninitiated into the fold, and endow satisfied customers with a desire for more—whether that comes in book form or in eagerness for a sequel. But no matter if you came as a fan, or are made into one by the experience, casual viewing is the riskiest way of journeying into Dune's vast, sandy landscape. 

I find it all a bit overwhelming even after reading the book and watching the '84 film (twice.) 

If you're not willing to invest the mental energy it takes to remember all the weird scifi names and terms, keep track of the medieval space politics, or care about characters who don't see their journey's end by the time the credits roll, then the only thing you're likely to get out of this film is a treat of big-budget visuals portraying the immense, looming and extreme fictional world. That alone is worth witnessing once, so I guess my recommendation is won. Still, with Villeneuve directing, great visuals were a shoo-in. My fear was that focus would be put on the wow-factor to the point where story and characters would suffer from boredom or pretentiousness. But no. Conversation drives the story, yet I wasn't bored for one second. And visual awe is turned up to the max, with dedication to relaying the character side of things keeping easily in stride.

My biggest worry of all was the casting of indie darling Timothée Chalamet as the film's lead. I know he's an actor who actually puts stock into acting but there's no predicting my reaction to his roles and performances. And a Paul who comes across wrong is a fatal flaw. I was skeptical. But he proves to be a good casting choice, portraying an accurate Paul who is neither bland nor annoying. He reminded me of the book version and gives a lot, even through Villeneuve's style of preferring to film his characters still and stoic. Once I wasn't worried about the lead anymore, I knew I was in for something good, but the movie doesn't stop there.

Though it's giant, it's dedicated down to the details.

Rebecca Ferguson is a force as Lady Jessica, as she should be; everything always bubbling just under her surface, always strong; always on the edge of breaking down. She walks a beautiful line. From the outset she was my favorite casting decision and that holds. Her elegant but worn looks are perfect for the part. She's captivating. Oscar Isaac works in a role that's probably difficult to correctly balance. Stellan Skarsgård's ominously droll voice and face pairs with the intimidating character design of the villain to great effect. Jason Momoa is a surprise standout for me, his charismatic energy a welcome highlight against his subdued surroundings. Josh Brolin biding his time in my favorite book character; Javier Bardem is in full character acting mode; Zendaya has the right amount of grounded girlishness. Characters I confused with others in the book have clear personalities and outstanding looks to help differentiate. The cast is near-perfect.

The only cast member who doesn't fit into the subtle but refined vibe is Dave Bautista, whose character can be summed up as "angry" and who passively yells his lines to convey that single dimension. This is a small negative, though there aren't many more that could be called bigger. Mostly, I wished for more, though I realize that's an unreasonable ask considering the film is two and a half hours long. I wish they could have included the whole of the first book without cutting out anything or increasing the epic, steady pace (which felt to me like watching a massive river or flood flowing from a high distance—beautiful and serene even with the obvious turmoil and force on display). I think Villeneuve chose the lesser of the evils and I hope it pays off.

The scale conveyed is so enormous it's a little hard to grasp.

This is my personal favorite work from Villeneuve, though I have never considered myself a huge fan. Part of me knows his penchant for enormous scale, robust scifi worldbuilding, and calculated way of storytelling makes him ideal for trying such a difficult piece of adapting. At the same time, I've never been deeply moved by his work. And the same is true here. Seeing the scale of the world, and seeing the book transposed so cleanly to the screen, made me smile, but it didn't bring me to love the story or characters any more. The book didn't bring much emotional attachment either, so maybe it's simply not that kind of story. But a small part of me wonders if the neatness of the work, and the cool, stoic style, are holding me back from tipping from this pleased admiration into something more freely adoring.

How much more astounding would this movie be if it could be everything it is, plus be wild, visceral, and psychedelic? Still, I don't want to complain. Dune had me smiling, enraptured, and dreading it ending—which it did far too soon. It was clearly thoughtfully adapted, keeping everything from the book it could while expanding it in some details, such as the vibrating, liquefying sand under the sandworms' attacks. I loved that. I loved the way The Voice is portrayed, as well as the way the book's heavy inner dialogue is adapted without the characters having literal inner dialogues. The plot was clear. The characters were given room to breathe and grow and the actors given opportunities to break out of the stoicism to have a bit of fun or bring extra intensity. And the special effects are so good I can't differentiate in-camera effects from CGI.

I don't care about fight or action scenes but there were several good ones of those, too.

I have a growing list of favorite scenes, moments, and little details, and have as much a desire to see this again (which I will, probably before I post this) as I do to see what the sequels have to hold. Dune is expansive, grand, and epic filmmaking on an unreal scale. An alien behemoth that can be approached from many angles, but my recommendation is simply that you let it sweep you along in its vast currents of sand to see the mesmerizing world it proudly and boldly puts on display for our appreciation. At the very, very least, it's an impressive and skillful craft of filmmaking.

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2

Spoiler-free.

Well James Gunn, you've done it again. It's been three years for us, but for the Guardians it's only been about a month. They're using their status as "Galaxy Savers" to get odd jobs of general protecting/guarding around the universe, and when Rocket (Bradley Cooper) takes advantage of their proximity to valuable objects, they get in trouble with an uber-race of pretentious gold people (led by Elizabeth Debicki). A mysterious man appears to help them out of this situation, and then reveals himself, telling Peter Quill, AKA Star-Lord (AKA the one and only Chris Pratt) that he is his father, Ego (Kurt Russell).

But -- did he look like Kurt Russell to Peter? Or does Kurt Russell not exist in this universe? Or does Kurt Russell not look like Kurt Russell? Asking the deep questions here.

This is of course huge news for Peter, and becomes the center for the movie's plot and heart. That the movie has this center is important to the film's quality as from it is born every exceptional aspect the film provides. Ego himself is the best character here, in that his character arc is the most natural, yet also the most intricate, and is most closely tied to the center of the film. Kurt Russell does his part brilliantly and with the ease of a practiced veteran, sometimes making less confident performances from his cast-mates more noticeable by comparison; sometimes elevating performances along with his own. Chris Pratt gets both sides of this.

I love Pratt, and I love Star-Lord, and I love the premise of the journey he goes on with this adventure, but none of it played out as well as it should have. He has that suggestive flirting scene because that's the Peter we knew, but it doesn't make sense anymore once we're told that he's going after one girl now -- Gamora (Zoe Saldana) -- now it's out of character for him to flirt with other women like that. His father provides a ton of fodder for character drama, with multiple stages of their relationship for varying emotions to expound on. Only one stage had time spent on it; the rest were breezed over in one swoop. To utilize them would have meant a re-haul of the film's events and pacing, but it would have been to the benefit of Peter's character. As the film is, Peter at best only gets equal benefit as every other character.

It all needs to come down to this guy. Or else, what is the point?

Every returning character is developed equally and in distinct pairs. Gamora and Nebula (Karen Gillan) dig deeper into their relationship of sisterly hate. Drax (Dave Bautista) is paired with newcomer Mantis (Pom Klementieff) for some wonderfully effective scenes of meaningful comedy. Mantis benefits greatly from being new; her unique character is established, and calls for nothing more. And Rocket and Yondu (Michael Rooker) bounce off each other to push along their edgy characters. Baby Groot (Vin Diesel) is never too far from Rocket, but is developed by himself, and also Kraglin (Sean Gunn) who gets bumped up the character ladder. By themselves, these pockets of characters are perfectly sufficiently compelling; when put into the film and viewed as a whole, they feel like more of a distraction. The thread used to tie them all to the film's center is too thin and too long, so though everything is technically connected, they might as well have not been, for the significance they add to the heart of the core.

I understand the idea. Fans love all these characters, as I'm sure James Gunn does, and the desire to focus on all of them was just too great. Sadly, that decision, made with the best of intentions, was the film's downfall (such as it is), because with the focus so widely spread, no one gets the attention they deserve. The original Guardians focused solely on Peter, and through him the others were also developed. That was impossible to do this time with the plot as it was, so perhaps it was as good as it could have possibly been -- it still pales in comparison with the groundbreaking first.

It's a conundrum with no easy fix.

So while the film had a heart in place as a source for grounding the emotional journeys and creating a common theme, the film's focus was too widespread to properly utilize it -- thus the film felt disconnected. The problem traces back to not showing the story through the sole eyes of Peter -- that is the root of any problems this films has. That being said, I enjoyed this movie like nobody's business. After it was over I had to come to terms with its domino-effected shortcoming, but in the moment I was all in, %100, let go, tickled to the core. The visuals (perhaps over-the-top at times) thrilled me; the jokes and gags landed (though they were generally of a slightly lesser quality there were more of them); the twists and plot developments involved me (they were, in fact, unexpectedly well done, and grounded in the film's darker core) and the music compelled me to be open to every bit of character-love I could glean. That was all I asked for and more; I was satisfied.

Who knows if a second viewing will be so carefree and eagerly open, (it's one thing to ignore and push aside issues; it's another to deny their existence) but no matter what I'm glad for the one I had. If nothing else I want to give a hearty "thank you" to James Gunn for the scene where Peter is asking the other Guardians for tape. That is half of the embodiment of why I love The Guardians of the Galaxy in the first place. The other half is the unexpectedly deep heart hidden under that kind of fun and humor -- here, it wasn't embodied in one thing, but wasn't completely absent either, you only have to scrounge around for it.

"I can still hear you sayin', you would never break the chain..."

Too much of a carbon copy of the original where it didn't matter, not enough of a spiritual copy where it did, Vol. 2 is a traditional Marvel sequel; more of the same on steroids. It both creates problems and brings back the sources of our original adoration. Its success is drawn out of that of the original's, and with the doozy of an original this one had going for it, it's no surprise it features such a cosmically high concentration of fun -- if only all that fun substance could have been applied to a more concise and well constructed framework, to better enhance the fun and the thrill the characters and the heart alike. Two-time Galaxy-savers? Absolutely -- but repeating the past can only get you so far.

Upcoming Movie Roundup - May

In April I was right about there not being any must-see new releases for me, though I am still interested in most of them for a someday/rental view. I did get to the theater twice, though, to see some repeats -- Kong: Skull Island, and La La Land -- and both were every bit as good the second time!

May has my most highly anticipated movie of the year (!!!!) plus a couple big releases that I'll certainly see eventually whether or not I go out of my way for them. The blockbuster season is beginning!

How does the month look for you? Anything you're particularly excited for? Let me know in the comments!


Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
May 5th; PG-13
Do I even need to say anything? This has probably been my most anticipated movie ever since the day I saw the first Guardians of the Galaxy. I have a great amount of confidence in James Gunn, and his ability to write and direct something that is not only entertaining, but also unique, moving, and set perfectly to classic music. Then Chris Pratt is still the greatest thing since sliced cheese, and all this movie needs to win me is him and the other guardians, a handful of good jokes, some splashy visuals, and some groovy tunes, and all those things are already guaranteed. At this point, it's only a question of how good it's gonna be. Saving the galaxy again? You know it!




King Arthur: Legend of the Sword
May12th; PG-13
What's going on here? King Arthur getting the superhero treatment? Excalibur appears to have actual magical powers. Also, filmmakers continue to try and steal from the Lord of the Rings. So here's the thing: Guy Ritchie undoubtedly makes visually unique movies, which gives this one a good bit of appeal, and the plot doesn't look like the worst thing (although I'd bet it falls apart in the end a bit). I like Jude Law, but (as I mentioned last month) don't care for Charlie Hunnam. And it really looks like this trailer is desperate for attention. It certainly looks like the better side of casual popcorn-y action flicks, but probably won't be able to compete with the next Pirates film let alone the Marvel one. There's a little curiosity, but not much hope.




Alien: Covenant
May 19th; R
I recently watched Alien and Aliens for the first time, and then Prometheus, so now this film almost seems like required viewing -- so of course it has to push that R-rating further than I want to follow. Prometheus's disappointment was in not being so much of an Alien movie, but was otherwise very effective, so since this one truly features the aliens, it looks like an ideal blend. Visually modern, but referring back to the originals. I won't be seeing it in theaters, but now that I'm in the franchise... I don't think there's any escaping.




Everything, Everything
May 19th; PG-13
This month in sappy kiddie romances.... This one's based on a YA novel that I came across in a store and was surprised at how short and large-printed it was. More like a tween novel. But you gotta adapt those teen novels, so here it is. It's got Rue from The Hunger Games all grown up, Nick Robinson, and the lady from Nacho Libre, and looks just about as sappy and fluffy as they come. I looked up spoilers out of curiosity and it cemented those thoughts even more. Probably fans of the book are looking forward to it, and fans of the genre will watch it, but if it makes any kind of splash I'll be super surprised.




Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales
May 26th; PG-13
So here's how I'm reasoning right now: there's no way this franchise could get any worse, so maybe this one is actually good? No way to go but up sort of deal? Well... "good" is maybe pushing it, but it certainly does look better than the last one, and the one before that, so maybe a Dead Man's Chest level of good? I'd be up for that. Sides of appeal: a young Jack Sparrow, Javier Bardem, Brenton Thwaites, and Kaya Scodelario. Plus the animation doesn't look as messy as it has before. The trailer says "final adventure." Does that mean this is the end?

Spectre

So the organization called "SPECTRE" is back -- or up and coming for the first time -- and James Bond is-- wait no, that's not important. Here's what's important: There's an organization, called "SPECTRE," their logo looks like this:

And it's an octopus? It's not -- you know -- a spectre? I'm confused.

Anyway, Bond (Daniel Craig) is out to stop Blofeld (Christoph Waltz) and SPECTRE, without the help or permission of M (the new M, Ralph Fiennes!) because there's this guy called C (but who was an "M" in another lifetime, Andrew Scott) who came out of nowhere and is trying to do evil things from inside the agency and the only way to stop it is for Bond to go solo (with a little help from adorkable Q (Ben Whishaw) and Moneypenny (a terribly underused Naomie Harris)), team up with a beautiful young woman (Léa Seydoux) who's important to the plot somehow (have I got this right so far?), wear a tux, drink a martini, introduce himself to someone, fight intimidating henchmen (man -- Dave Bautista), fly, boat, fly, ski, fly, and boat -- in that order, with various gun and hand fights thrown in the mix, all the while looking as expressionless as possible. Did I leave anything out? Oh yes...

He's got a license to kill. But, he's also got a license... not to kill.

I've never been very approving of Daniel Craig's 007, though I did enjoy Skyfall, and Casino Royal had its moments as well. Craig has epic action-star abilities, which get put to good use in these films, but character-wise, Bond has never been duller than in this movie right here. A bored expression does not a cool character make. He gets one or two fleeting slick moments, but otherwise the occasional subtle eye-roll is the biggest expression his face ever makes. He's so cool, that he's not actually cool anymore.

Everyone else can be boiled down to one thing: wasted potential. Andrew Scott was where this was most obvious, because who would cast him to play a placid character? No one, that's who. Yet placid his is for placid they all are. I literally the day before seeing this watched Rory Kinnear play an extreme creepy stalker for laughs in Man Up; and then he shows up here, and just stands there... with words coming out his mouth. I know for a fact that these actors are capable of infusing a film with energy and making you care for the characters they are playing. I have witnessed every single one of them do it. But this film is so tonally dull that anything resembling liveliness gets sucked away.

I was really looking forward to her Moneypenny after 28 Days Later, but 'twas a fruitless hope.

And what is left is a pompous sense of carelessness, and one dimensional characters that only exist to move the plot along through the paint-by-numbers Bond coloring book. And all the colors are grey. One thing Spectre does that is useful is a kind of experiment, it seems. They appear to have wondered if action films are exciting and entertaining just because they have action in them, and then tested the theory, creating an action film filled with action pieces that are treated as if they were a nice stroll through a park. The result is a high-speed car chase where James is pursued by villainous henchman Bautista, and has a casual chat with Moneypenny on the phone about unrelated plot-development-exposition-what-have-you. I think it was supposed to be for laughs, but it was ironically just like the rest of the film, where casual delivery of action results in boring action.

Technically the stunts and action sequences were difficult and well-executed, and visually the film is pretty fairly striking. Silhouettes is the name of the game here, and I enjoyed the high-contrast (if not colorful) look. But impressive feats and a pretty face mean nothing if there's not anything in a movie to engage you and invite you to care. And no matter how pretty the shot is, there comes a point where it's too long -- here, you can almost see Sam Mendes wave at that point as he flies past it, muttering about how the movie has to be two and a half hours long, and calculating how many extra seconds of how many unnecessary shots he'll need to make that goal.

"A spy without a gadget is like a shopping cart without a broken wheel." -- Spy Fox

I don't care what kind of statement you're trying to make; having James Bond toss away his gun like that is just plain out of character. Maybe it could be pulled off jokingly, but I never could tell if this film attempted any jokes. This character and the elements that must surround him are the opposite of conducive to the lesson the film was trying to teach. This serious and bored Bond, trying to be what he used to be simultaneously with a new, hip, moral him is forced and trite. It just plain doesn't work.

Dark but not deep; dull, slow, and plodding but not smart, and filled with trivial action that is too easily forgettable, 007's latest adventure is only able to offer slight, relaxed moments of entertainment in a franchise meant to gleefully thrill. Spectre is not a cool and original octopus, nor a dark and haunting spirit, it's just a dry, grey wisp of expensive and useless smoke -- interesting enough in the moment; gone and forgotten at the next breeze.