Pages

Showing posts with label Elle Fanning. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Elle Fanning. Show all posts

Monday, November 30, 2020

A Rainy Day in New York

Spoiler-free!

Timothée Chalamet plays the Woody Allen archetype and Elle Fanning plays the most annoyingly hyper and ditzy girl imaginable in this laid-back amble through NYC—and they do pretty good job at it. 

It's kinda like if an AI copied Woody Allen. And that's kinda part of the charm.

They go to New York from their upstate college; Elle for business (she landed an interview with a semi-popular artsy filmmaker) and Timothée for pleasure (he loves New York, naturally). They part ways, planning to meet up later. Typical Woody Allen hijinks ensue. Quirky, ponderous monologues are made. The two characters meander from place to place, finding and losing other odd characters played by other famous actors as they get into and out of niche situations. Liev Schreiber, Jude Law, Selena Gomez, Diego Luna, Cherry Jones... It rains. Then an ending place is reached and the credits roll.

It's par for the course on Woody Allen movies. If you always like his style, your mind is made up. If you always dislike his style, likewise. I'm in the middle somewhere. Watching this thing breeze by, it felt meandering and pointless, though not unpleasant. The cast was nice. Even Elle being annoying was intentional and had amusingness in it. Timothée was a little more relaxed into his role than he sometimes is. (It's not a try-hard acting part.) He comes across a little pretentious at first then warms as we follow him through the day. I was lukewarm on it overall. But then the ending shone a different light on preceding events.

This movie is all about the journey, but my taste in entertainment relies (perhaps too much) on destination.

I guess that's the thing about Woody Allen. You know to expect the meandering, the monologues, the old music. What you don't know is whether the plot is going to work for you or not. With a plot as meandering and distracted as this one felt, it seemed capable of going anywhere—until it got to where it was always going. And I have to say, I liked the destination. I liked it so much that my lukewarm feelings have turned into something more substantial. Something more distinctly positive. Something I wouldn't mind wandering through again someday.

I think that's all this minor jaunt was intended to be; I won't bother it for anything more.

Wednesday, October 2, 2019

Upcoming Movie Roundup - October

Bye summer! September went as planned and I saw both of my must-sees in theaters. It Chapter Two wasn't as great as Chapter One, but didn't leave me disappointed either (review) and Ad Astra rocketed itself up to be one of my favorites of the year -- and probably a permanent favorite of rich science fiction. It was everything I wanted it to be! (Review!)

Besides those I did some catching up from August. Ready or Not was a fun horror flick though not exceptionally so (review). It had a breath of fresh air quality to it. State like Sleep from January was interesting but unfulfilling though pleasantly noirish in tone (review). And, Body at Brighton Rock from April was a severe and incompetent disappointment (review).

Finally, there was the rollercoaster ride that In the Shadow of the Moon gave me. A September Netflix release that I missed in the roundup, I was briefly extremely excited for it, as it starred one of my favorite actors, and was solidly in the scifi noir genre, but after a few days of excitedly anticipating it, it was the biggest disappointment of the year. A maddening waste. I panned it as hard as I could in my review.

Now, October has a ton of big releases, and many that I feel like I should see, but not too many that I'm genuinely excited for. Here's hoping there's some surprises! What looks good to you this fine fall month?



Joker
In theaters October 4th; R
My only real worry concerning this movie is that it'll simply be too dark and intense for me to enjoy. I know there's a lot of controversy around it now, but I don't think it's possible to weigh in on the discussion until you've seen it. I'd like to see it, but I'm also scared to. Even Heather Ledger's PG-13 turn as the Joker unsettled me in ways that I didn't care for, and Joaquin Phoenix seems to have turned it up to 11, and then way past that. He's a fantastic actor and I feel like this will be one of those films that make an impact on the culture and become a must-see. I'm just not sure I'll get to the theaters for it.




Lucy in the Sky
In theaters October 4th; R
This one's getting panned in such a way that I can't figure out if it means I'd be less or more likely to enjoy it. I'm not a Natalie Portman fan, nor does it seem super exciting to watch a movie in which a person wants to go to space the whole time but little screen time is spent there, but -- I am a scifi and space movie fan, so I suspect I'll watch this someday whether I hate it or not.




Sometimes Always Never
Limited release on October 4th; PG-13
I think there's no hypothetical scenario in which Bill Nighy plays Sam Riley's dad in a movie and I wouldn't be interested in seeing it. This one is also about Scrabble, and Nighy's character looking for his other grown son who stormed out and disappeared after a bad game. The trailer has a sweet and sad yet comical tone to it that works so well with British films. I'll definitely give this one a chance!




Low Tide
Limited Release on October 4th: R
The guy from Alita: Battle Angel and Jaeden Martell as brothers in what looks like a slick southern gothic story involving gold coins and running from the law. Reminds me of Mud but in a more extreme, unrealistic way. Unrealistic isn't a bad or good thing, it just depends on if it's good and entertaining and has real meaning attached to it. I tend to like movies like this, but this one seems like it could be particularly good if it plays right. Looking forward to seeing if it does!




The Addams Family
In theaters October 11th; PG
Here's the cast on this thing: Oscar Isaac, Charlize Theron, Chloe Grace Moretz, Finn Wolfhard, Nick Kroll, Bette Midler, and Allison Janney. And yet. If you were to watch the trailer, you would realize -- this movie would be pure torture to sit through.




Gemini Man
In theaters October 11th; PG-13
If the de-aging Will Smith CGI is that noticeable in the trailer, just think how bad it'll look in the actual movie, where the screen is bigger and they can't mine the best shots to show off. But don't get me wrong -- I'm quite willing to watch this. Provided it's at home so I can laugh without bothering anyone.




Parasite
Limited release on October 11th; R
Everyone's talking about this and I know nothing about it, so I'm not anticipating it and probably won't go and try to see it in theaters, but I'll definitely keep it in mind for streaming days. The trailer is intriguing to say the least!




Zombieland: Double Tap
In theaters October 18th; R
Jesse Eisenberg, Woody Harrelson, Emma Stone, and Abigail Breslin are all back. I liked the first Zombieland; I like zombie comedies; I like the cast -- I'll see the movie! Barring the possibility that it stinks and I lose interest, anyway. I'm not dead set on it but it does look like a fine fun time even if it isn't at the level of the original. And even if they steal jokes from Shaun of the Dead and overplay them.




Maleficent: Mistress of Evil
In theaters October 18th; PG-13
So Maleficent back to being evil? Classic cheap sequel, reverting the characters back to their original state and giving them the exact same character arc again. I did not like the first one of this, but I didn't like it in a way that I really enjoyed -- thinking about why and what could have been better, and for that reason I actually am curious to see this sequel. Also Sam Riley is back and there's a NEW and improved (?) actor playing Prince Phillip, so maybe we'll get some good romance this time! (Unlikely, but I can wish.) Ugh, this looks so bad, I actually feel bad for wanting to see it anyway.




The Lighthouse
Limited release on October 18th; R
Another that everyone's talking about. This one I'd probably be interested in on my own, for a few reasons. After Robert Pattinson was cast as the next Batman I've been a little more interested to check out a range of his work. That is probably why most people want to see this too, now that I think of it. Also I'm always intrigued by black and white movies. You can't be a good film fan unless you at least pay attention to A24 releases, and finally, stories set at lighthouses get my attention easily. Still, I kinda doubt I'll like it when it's all said and done. Hard to tell for sure, that's just my impression. I'll certainly give it a chance, and hope it's not too scary.




Jojo Rabbit
Limited release on October 18th; PG-13
When all is said and done, I WILL watch this movie, because Sam Rockwell is in it. As for the rest, I have loved Taika Waititi's work (What We Do in the Shadows) liked it (Hunt for the Wilderpeople) and... not... liked it (Thor: Ragnarok). This looks closest in style to the one I loved so that's a good sign. I'm also not offended by people making fun of Hitler and Nazis through satire. The trailer makes me laugh, which is the best sign of all -- I think I may be even excited for this one!




Black and Blue
In theaters October 25th; NR
I've been on a kick of watching a lot of police body-cam videos recently, some for entertainment, some for educational purposes, so I imagine this movie would annoy me by having the footage be so "movie." It also seems too far-fetched that she can't find one single good cop to help her out. Still I do like one person vs the world kind of movies and I really like Naomie Harris, so I'll keep an eye on this. If it turns out cheap, or nothing but political propaganda, I won't bother.




Countdown
In theaters October 25th; NR
What if an app could tell you how long you have until you DIE??? This looks silly. I'll watch it at home with my brothers and it'll be a good time.





Monday, April 1, 2019

Upcoming Movie Roundup - April

Alrighty! In March I saw Captain Marvel as expected. Found it pretty unremarkable (review here). And sadly didn't get to see The Kid which I was hoping to be able to. I did watch Triple Frontier because it was on Netflix, and it was good enough to make an enjoyable watch, but I didn't have anything to say about it, so I didn't review it.

The biggest surprise though, was that I went to see Five Feet Apart, and not only that, but I really, really liked it! And not just in a typical teen romance kind of way. It was good in ways that surpassed the genre. But it also fit the genre too. It was a great balance of cheesy romance, real emotions, and informative of Cystic Fibrosis that worked without any element stepping on the toes of the others. (review here!)

I'm still annoyingly interested in seeing Dumbo too, but no one want to see it with me. Sad days. Anyway, April is shaping up nicely! If all goes to plan more than a few of these movies should be a good time! So what looks good to you?


Shazam!
April 5th; PG-13
My most anticipated of the month is first! Zachary Levi, Jack Grazer, Mark Strong... I haven't seen the kid who plays Billy before, but I bet he's good too. I admit, the trailer got tiresome when it first came out, but since my excitement has steadily been building regardless, and all the positive early reviews are only making me more pumped! The idea of making Big into a superhero movie seems like a ton of fun, and I'm looking forward to a superhero flick that isn't a boring slog for a nice change. The DCEU has had its downs but it's capable of great heights too, and I get a feeling this one's going up!




Pet Sematary
April 5th; R
I dunno, maybe someday, but definitely not in theaters. Honestly, I'm not over Hereditary yet, and need some more time before seeing legit scary movies again. Or maybe the way to fix it IS to see some better scary movies! I heard somewhere this is the scariest Stephen King adaptation yet. It does look good, and generally my speed. Jason Clarke and Amy Seimetz (of Stranger Things) star.




High Life
April 5th(limited); R
Robert Pattinson and his daughter, Mia Goth and other what? Criminals? In space? I keep an eye on all scifi movies, so this is here. But somehow, I get the impression that it isn't exactly what I'd want it to be. Looks pretty though.




The Wind
April 5th(limited); R
Another horror movie, and this one seems more supernatural, which isn't so much my horror speed. I do like the lonely setting and the richly low-key tone though. Will consider, if the opportunity arises...




Unicorn Store
April 5th; NR
Brie Larson's directorial debut, on Netflix, with her Captain Marvel buddy Samuel L. Jackson too. I feel like I'll definitely watch this, mostly out of curiosity and because it's on Netflix so it's free. The plot doesn't instantly appeal to me, but it could be interesting. Or it could be frilly nonsense. I guess we'll find out!!




Hellboy
April 12th; R
I just recently realized that my liking the Guillermo Del Toro version is kinda an "unpopular opinion" or maybe the people who didn't like it are just being extra hard on it in anticipation of liking this one more. I mean, it's rated R, so what could go wrong, right?? Well, that sounds fine to me, but I honestly didn't notice anything lacking in Del Toro's, and this one won't have his eye for visuals or practical effects. It's looks CGI, and less than spectacular. Also seems a bit cheap script-wise with several lame jokes in the trailer, but Del Toro's was no masterpiece on that score either. It does have David Harbour... in place of Ron Perlman. Seems like a toss-up there. If it gets good reviews though, I wouldn't be surprised if I went to see it.




Missing Link
April 12th(limited); PG
It's stop-motion animation. I don't care what it's about: I'll see it. But it's about some Bigfoot-type creature, apparently. And the cast is great: Hugh Jackman, Zoe Saldana, Timothy Olyphant, Emma Thompson, Zach Galifianikis, and Stephen Fry. Doesn't look like the best stop-motion ever, with the dumb jokes, but like I said. I'll give it a chance!




Teen Spirit
April 12th; PG-13
This is like the kind of movie that I'll always be interested in but never actually buckle down and watch. It looks great, I love the neon and the style... but plot-wise, there's this dread that it'll go the way it appears to be that might keep me away. Elle Fanning tries to become a teen music idol.




Stockholm
April 12th(limited); R
Yeah, I guess it looks pretty funny in a pleasantly dark way, and it's got Ethan Hawke, Mark Strong, and Noomi Rapace. I guess this is the real-life situation that started the whole Stockholm syndrome thing? All I know is that this is the sort of thing I might or might not ever watch, depending on if the mood strikes and there's nothing better to do.




The Perfect Date
April 12th; NR
Hahaha, yes, please! Noah Centineo rents himself out to high school girls in need of chaperones. So... like... a PG escort service. The premise alone makes me laugh. It's Netflix, it's a teen rom-com. You know I'm on board.




The Man Who Killed Don Quixote
April 19th(limited); NR
Is this for real? Is it actually coming? I feel like this movie doesn't actually exist and we're just getting duped right now. The biggest April Fools joke of all time or something. I know it has mixed reviews at the moment but I can't help being absolutely stoked -- it just looks exactly like my kind of deal. Jonathan Price, Adam Driver and Stellan Skarsgård. Terry Gilliam craziness hopefully. I don't know if and don't expect it to come to my theater, but I will definitely be seeing it at my earliest opportunity!




Under the Silver Lake
April 19th(limited); R
Another potential April Fools joke. This one I had in my upcoming post back in June of last year and I think it might actually be coming for real this time. Andrew Garfield and Riley Keough. At this point it's mostly the curiosity that's keeping me from forgetting it entirely.




Avengers: Endgame
April 26th; PG-13
Le sigh. My brother hasn't bought our tickets yet, but undoubtedly I'll be there opening night. I'm not dreading it, but I'm not excited either. There are things I think seem promising that I'll likely enjoy and other things that will almost certainly irritate me. At this point, it's par for the course with the MCU. The biggest event movie of the modern era, and my hype level is a resounding zero. Let's get it over with, so we can get back to Spider-Man.




Body at Brighton Rock
April 26th(limited); NR
This looks like quite the interesting little indie thriller. Obviously pretty cheap, but has a very solid premise of an inexperienced park ranger finding a body and having to wait with it for help to arrive. If they do the story well it won't matter at all if the production is cheap.


Saturday, September 1, 2018

Upcoming Movie Roundup - September

Well, I didn't get out to see any of my August picks. I thought I might not, but I'm still looking forward to most of them, so I'll just have to catch them later. I mostly stayed home and played catch-up on some earlier 2018 releases: The Endless, The Hurricane Heist, Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society, and Rampage.

I did go to the theater though -- Dad and I went to see 2001: A Space Odyssey for it's 50th anniversary. It was a cool experience, definitely more powerful and effective on a big screen with cranked up sound! It's a fascinating film, and I seem to enjoy it more with each rewatch.

Hopefully I'll get to the theater this month -- there's at least one that I'm hoping to get out for! Not a huge spread this month, as summer wraps up, but definitely still some interesting ones! What looks good to you?


Cold Skin
Sept 7th; NR
I know, I know. I know what this looks like, and I know there's no way it's a really good movie -- but I want to see it anyway. It's the kind of lower-rate fantasy action horror that I enjoy. At the very least it has a memorable premise and setting. Ray Stevenson in in it, and the main actor, David Oakes I've seen around the block on Masterpiece productions.




The Predator
Sept 14th; R
My boy Boyd Holbrook leading a Predator movie? After Logan I'd watch him in anything, but with how much I enjoyed Adrien Brody's take on a Predator hero, I get the impression that this is going to be a real treat. Maybe I should try and watch the original first though. I never got around to that one. Also I'm not sure this one looks as good as Predators, but even if it isn't, it would take a lot to keep me from enjoying it! Jacob Tremblay, Tom Jane, and apparently Yvonne Strahovski are also in it. So, that's extra cool. If I had to pick only one movie to see this month, at the moment this would be it! (Red band trailer.)

 



Patient Zero
Sept 14th; R
Alright, now that's what I'm talking about! This is what I was hoping for whenever Matt Smith left Doctor Who -- that he'd get to star in original movies that were fun but expanded from Who. (I was super disappointed at his role in Terminator Genysis, and then he was still underused in P&P&Z) But this looks neat. Zombies, but a new and imaginative take on them. And he's the lead. At this point I don't even care if it's bad. I mean, I'd watch it anyway because I like zombie flicks. Also, there's Natalie Dormer and Stanley Tucci, and Stanley Tucci is always a good idea.




A Simple Favor
Sept 14th; R
I don't want to watch this so much as I just want to know then result of the mystery. The style is appealing. It claims noir, and the plot has a noir tone, and it reminds me a bit of Thoroughbreds, but then I found that it's directed by Paul Feig and I'm wondering if it'll really have that style or if it's just an effective trailer and good marketing.




I Think We're Alone Now
Sept 14th; R
One of THOSE scifi movies. I'm a fan. Well, I mean, I like slow and cerebral scifi, anyway. This trailer really wants you to know how art-house-y it is, and otherwise reveals so little -- besides that it's got Peter Dinklage and Elle Fanning, everyone else is dead, there's some white X's on the ground, and it's all super dramatic -- that I don't have anything to say except I'll probably watch it just because I like scifi.



The House with a Clock in it's Walls
Sept 21st; PG
After the unusually enjoyable Goosebumps movie, kid's fantasy movies with Jack Black have an extra appeal for me. Ooh, and Steven Spielberg produced. And Cate Blanchett. She's golden. The kid looks like Jacob Tremblay, but it's not him. Based on a book and you should know what I think about that by now! (It's generally a good sign.) It's like Harry Potter lite, with more little-kid fantasy. Yep, I want to see this.




Life Itself
Sept 21st; R
Okay, but do all the story lines connect? It looks like it's gonna be one of those Love Actually things where there's only a loose connection and so many stories because one wasn't meaty enough to make a whole movie. That the impression I just got, anyway, but hey, I'll watch it. I'll watch it for Oscar Isaac and Olivia Cooke, and also for Olivia Wilde and Mandy Patinkin.




The Old Man & the Gun
Sept 28th; PG-13
Robert Redford's last movie before he retires from acting, apparently where he plays a gentleman bank-robber, and Sissy Spacek becomes his Bonnie. It looks like a very nice and well made film, though not exactly the sort I'd watch out of interest for the plot. Still I'll keep my eye on it and the reviews and maybe something about it will catch my fancy. At this point in my life, Redford's older movies are higher on my priority list.




Black 47
Sept 28th; R
Nice. Hardcore Irish revenge drama in 1847, during the famine. Hugo Weaving, Jim Broadbent, Freddy Fox, and Barry Keoghan. The lead I've not seen before -- no wait, I have, in Animal Kingdom. Anyway, I like the idea of violent period dramas, most of the one's I ever watch are more on the romance side, and Dickens is the darkest it gets. On the downside of that though, more tragic and meaningless character deaths (I can only assume) because of the famine, a real-life thing, which is sad. Still it looks like it's worth a watch.




Summer 03
Sept 28th; NR
Haha, so this is for kids who wanted to like Lady Bird but it turned out to be too meaningful and not romantically cliched enough, right? Kids that probably don't even remember the early 2000's. I do, and being catholic wasn't unusually popular. So the fact that this movie has it as well as Lady Bird which was set only a year later, seems like a rather big coincidence. That's all I have to say. I don't want to watch this movie. (And I don't really care if it's Lady Bird lite either.) (On another note it feels super weird to me that so many movies are being set "back" in the 2000's. Like, it feels like it just happened yesterday. Is it really vintage already??) (ALSO I generally love coming of age movies, but the sexual ones are literally the worst???) Okay I'm really done now. Have a nice day!



Thursday, March 1, 2018

Upcoming Movie Roundup - March

February started out with the surprise release of The Cloverfield Paradox on Netflix. I had already dubbed it "The Month of Scifi," so unexpectedly springing one of the year's most anticipated scifi movies at us was perfect beginning. Of course the movie itself wasn't perfect, and divided opinions among fans. Still I enjoyed it very much. Read my review here!

Then I went to the theater to see Black Panther, but still didn't manage to see The Death Cure. Sadness. Black Panther was a Marvel movie, and did basically everything that entails. Didn't hate it, didn't love it. Read my review here!

We started the Netflix TV show Altered Carbon (and are currently two eps from the end) and I was pretty disappointed, because while the world is nice and scifi, and it had a noir-type premise, the feel of it is very normal for TV shows today, and I'm not finding it terribly compelling. Whenever I finish maybe I'll review it and see if I can figure out and express exactly how it fails.

But no matter, because there is Mute. The trailer made this Netflix film look less noir than Altered Carbon, but that was because it didn't reveal any of the plot, but it turns out the plot is noir through and through, and I loved it. Mute is exactly what I mean when I say "I like the scifi-noir genre," and after worrying me with terrible critic reviews, blew me away and is currently my favorite film of the year. Read my spoiler-free review here!

March has five Fridays, so there's lots to get to -- I'll probably keep it brief. There's one movie at least that I absolutely must see no matter what, and lots more that looks interesting in various degrees. Hope y'all had a great February! What did you see that you liked? And what's looking good this month?



Death Wish
Mar 2nd; R
Bruce Willis action movie -- violence and guns and frontier justice! Probably won't be super great since it's a remake, but there's no denying the appeal.




Goldstone
Mar 2nd; R
This one says it's a noir. Is noir making a comeback? Looks like a mystery that is both intense and easy going at the same time. Nice tone and cinematography in the trailer. Neon plus the Australian Outback. Very neat combo. Good reviews too.




The Vanishing of Sidney Hall
Mar 2nd; R
The writing and mystery elements of this one is more interesting to me than the cast, but it stars Logan Lerman and Elle Fanning. Lerman is a writer who disappears without a trace to get away from the unpleasant fame following the publishing of his controversial book. Bad reviews so far, but considering Mute I'll be paying attention anyway...




A Wrinkle in Time
Mar 9th; PG
I never read the book, and from the looks of things I should put more priority on that than on going out to see this kids scifi/fantasy adventure. It looks like the sort of thing that I won't be able to resist watching eventually though, even if it isn't anything special.




Gringo
Mar 9th; R
There's some weird, crazy things going down in this trailer. Dark comedy, so that's great if it's done well, and a great cast too. Joel Edgerton, Charlize Theron, David Oyelowo -- and Sharlto Copley!




The Hurricane Heist
Mar 9th; PG-13
Yes, this movie is going to be stupid. And yes, that's half of why I absolutely must watch it. Even if I didn't my brother would make me because he loves stupid disaster movies. And this one has a heist that the heroes must thwart at the same time! But the other half of why I'll watch it is Toby Kebbell. So yes -- I'm there.




Thoroughbreds
Mar 9th; R
This isn't really the kind of plot I'd usually pay much attention to, but this will be the last film of the late Anton Yelchin's, so it worth mentioning on that alone. Also Olivia Cooke playing a sociopath is weirdly appealing.




Tomb Raider
Mar 16th; PG-13
Chances of this movie being good are... not good. Really very not good. But it'll probably have a decent run anyway, and action flicks can only be so bad -- as long as there's action, ya know? I'll watch it for cheap someday probably, just because of it's mainstream status. Alicia Vikander may elevate it a bit, but the trailer looks like a video game, and I'm not feeling it.




Journey's End
Mar 16th; R
WWI drama starring Sam Claflin, Asa Butterfield and Paul Bettany. Looks like a well made film.




7 Days in Entebbe
Mar 16th; PG-13
A telling of a true story where Israeli Special Forces rescue hostages of a terrorist plane hijacking in the 70's. It ends well, so that's nice, and stars Daniel Brühl and Rosamund Pike -- but as the terrorists. So I guess don't get too attached? Eddie Marsan appears to be the main good guy.




Pacific Rim Uprising
Mar 23rd; PG-13
John Boyega's turn in the seat -- er, turn to share the seat -- with... Scott Eastwood? Okay. Whatever, I think I get how this works, but I haven't actually seen the first one due to a distaste for Charlie Hunnam. But I did survive Legend of the Sword, so maybe now I should bite the bullet and see what this is all about. This trailer is certainly under no delusion about what kind of a movie it is.




Unsane
Mar 23rd; R
Is Claire Foy crazy? Or is she not? That's the biggest reason to see this right there. The curiosity. Anyway, this looks like a very effective thriller. The wide angle lenses and tall aspect ratio alone make it feel so intense and claustrophobic.




Isle of Dogs
Mar 23rd; PG-13
Stop-motion? I love stop-motion! Wes Anderson? I love Wes Anderson! I haven't seen his other stop-motion endeavor because I'm too cheap to buy the DVD apparently, and it isn't streaming anywhere I use. So I should consider going to the theater for this one I think. Or else I may never get the chance!




Ready Player One
Mar 29th; PG-13
Yes, I'm ready. Heck, I've been ready for TWO YEARS ever since I first finished the book and looked up the cast and director. Tye Sheridan in the lead, Simon Pegg and Mark Rylance supporting. And now there's Ben Mendelsohn as the villain and Olivia Cook as the love-interest. And Steven Spielberg directing a movie from a book that was inspired by the works of Steven Spielberg! Honestly the book wasn't even that great, but it has such great cinematic potential I'm stoked to see what they do with it. Naysay all you like. It might crash and burn, but I'm going to be excited and hopeful anyway! Just don't change the ending...



Lean on Pete
Mar 30th; R
Aw, this looks like such a great film. Coming of age, indie adventure and drama, horses... based on a book too, which puts even more confidence in the story quality. I definitely want to see this.



Monday, June 27, 2016

Young Ones

Spoiler-free.

Young Ones is a genre mashup of western and science fiction. Think of Cowboys & Aliens. Then think of the exact opposite of that. That is this movie.

In the near future (ah, I love the near future -- a place of infinite possibilities in storytelling) the land is experiencing a severe drought. Farmland has turned to desert, and the farmers have left in search of water; but not Ernest (). Ernest believes that the water will return and all he needs to do is wait for it while taking care of his land, and his family: His rebellious daughter Mary () who is dating his neighbor's shady son Flem () without his consent, and his son Jerome () who he teaches everything he knows, and who follows eagerly in his footsteps.

Written and directed by .

As a sci-fi and as a western, this movie takes the subtle approach. On the western side it's unusual just because it's set in a modern time. Besides the desert, it looks more like sci-fi, but its themes are distinctly, classically western. The look is sci-fi, and even quite dystopian with people doing things like washing dishes with sand and always looking dusty because that's how rare water is. There's also some real-life leading edge technology on display, and some that seems only just out of our reach, like a robotic rigging system that allows the family's paralyzed mother to walk herself around like a puppet. But there are no aliens or anything of the like, so the sci-fi remains very grounded and realistic.

But mostly this film's style is independent. Even bordering on art house type stuff. There's very little exposition, no audience pandering, and large amounts of symbolism and telling the story through camerawork rather than only through the script. Instead the script devotes its spoken lines to sounding realistic. At the beginning we seem to have come across this family in the middle of their story, and at the end we leave them to continue on without us. Conversations develop naturally and have that classic indie feel. You have to dig in a little to glean character development from them, and they are rich and memorable. I loved the scenes between Ernest and Jerome especially.

The robotic mule is a 'Big Dog" built by Boston Dynamics.

In fact, I really liked Michael Shannon in this film. Before, I'd only seen him play bad guys and side characters, which was enjoyable enough, but I've always figured he'd really grab my attention someday, and today is that day. Ernest is established so resolutely, and it's immediately obvious that the film will never be able to explore all the sides of his character even if it tried. He strongly evokes characteristics of hardened, on-edge ranchers of the old west, who mow down villains without a second thought, but are also dedicated family men. The film's first act is his, and later when the film shifts focus (to Flem in the second act and finally Jerome in the third) the absence of the charisma he brought to the screen was noticeable. Not to say the rest wasn't good; I just mean to point out that he was especially dynamic.

Kodi Smit-McPhee's performance as Jerome is second on the impressive list -- which is impressive in itself since Nicholas Hoult and Elle Fanning are also in the cast. Jerome is who the story is really about in a fitting coming of age plot line, and it was really neat to watch him develop from the kid who just follows his father, to a young man who takes charge on his own. By the end he has developed his own uniquely commanding presence.

Nicholas Hoult was interesting, playing a bad guy for an odd change. He was a good choice for the part because he plays bad well, but also I was influenced by all the distinctly good and innocent characters he's played, which created a neat conflict as I tried to figure out the character. Elle Fanning I think did a good job. Her character really annoyed me, but I think she was supposed to. So she was basically in the same boat as Hoult, but it didn't work as well for the movie.

"In a future without water vengeance will rain." Now that's a tagline. Too bad the film's title isn't so good.

Young Ones has mixed reviews from critics, but one thing everyone agrees on is that it's visually spectacular. The location in South Africa was beautiful and the practical effects helped out, but what I loved most was the camera work. Not just the framing of a shot to encompass the beauty of what was there, but the movement too. The camera was very often in motion -- panning through wide shots or utilizing extreme zooming to create several shots in one -- and that motion drove the film forward; keeping the plot from sinking into monotone. It also added interest to the film's artistic side, creating symbolism or deepening the story and performances. Imagery was the biggest impression this film left on me.

It is arguable that this film lacks in plot and character development. At first I wasn't quite sure what to make of it. I certainly wanted to see more character, plus I didn't "get" a few details, and thought that I missed some of the symbolism that would have gave the movie more meaning. But the longer I thought about it, the more I warmed to it. I felt a lot of meaning attached to the story, just not in an overt way. The plot happens and doesn't dictate or pander or explain itself. It was simple, but it compelled me; at times it was staggeringly bold. And characters, if at all underdeveloped, were probably done that way on purpose. It makes us work to understand them which I think is fitting.

There's room for personal translation.

When this movie ended, I sat for a while thinking, and eventually figured that I'd have to watch it again just to understand it well enough to review it. But I re and replayed it in my head as I remembered it and finally came to my above conclusions. Now I want to see it again to understand and appreciate it even more. Because, unlike the film's farmers whose wells have long run dry, the deeper you dig into this age-old tale woven neatly into a futuristic setting, the less dirt you will find.

Tuesday, March 17, 2015

Maleficent

Major Spoilers throughout.

Once upon a time, not very long ago, there was a beloved entertainment genre, known as "fairytales." Fairytales were known for their fantasy settings, sweeping light romance, and clear-cut good vs. evil themes. But then some people grew tired of the simple, classic stories, and started a new trend of turning those tales on their heads and confusing the enjoyment right out of them -- Maleficent is one such product of that trend, and the poster child for everything ridiculous about it.

From the very beginning this story's manipulation is forced and awkward. I mean, this is what the heroine looks like. Lurking in the shadows.

There are two kingdoms; one filled with humans, and the other with magical creatures and fairies. The most powerful being in the fairy land is Maleficent, just a girl, but equipped with huge horns, gigantic wings, and full of kindness and love for everyone -- just like all of her kin. Young Maleficent meets a human boy her age, Stefan, and the two slowly form a close friendship that eventually turns to love. Then without warning the boy is gone. Maleficent grows up into Angelina Jolie. Then the plot really starts rolling, when the human king attacks her land, for murky reasons of fear, jealousy, or some other nasty, unreasonable human feeling.

In the battle, it is important to note, Maleficent and her forces kill many soldiers, and suffer no casualties themselves. If you think that goes against the supposed strict peacefulness of the fairies, you're absolutely right. After the king is easily defeated, and on his deathbed from a fall caused by Maleficent, he promises the throne to the person who can avenge him, speaking to his officers and councilors, but his servant is also present, a grown up Stefan (and now Sharlto Copley). Stefan grew greedily ambitious over the years; for the throne, he goes to murder the person he supposedly loved as a boy. To a little of his credit, he can't do it, but he does mange to cut off and steal her wings, which gets him the throne all the same.

Well-played Stefan; you wanted to be a king when you grew up; now as a bonus you're also Sharlto Copley, and not even a murderer!

Those wings must have housed all of Maleficent's goodness, because after they're gone, her transformation into the villainous, vengeful, and vile lady we all know is swift indeed. And her villain side makes much more sense than her good side. She enlists a crow (Sam Riley, when he is in human form) to be her spy and when he reports that the new king Stefan and his queen have had a daughter, she makes her move for revenge.

The obvious question now is why didn't she just go to the castle and kill Stefan immediately? Or maybe just take and eye for an eye (or eye for wing, as the case would be)? But no, her master plan of revenge is to curse his daughter. She is too good to murder the one she wants revenge on -- one who deserves it -- but she has no problem doing essentially the same to an innocent. She curses the baby girl, as we all know, to prick her finger on a spindle on the sixteenth birthday and fall into a sleep-like death (I think the technical term is actually "death-like sleep"). Only after Stefan begs her does she allow for a cure -- true love's kiss can break the curse, and nothing else -- this, because she knows true love doesn't exist; when they were young, he gave her a kiss saying it was true love's, and look at how they turned out.

This is how that turned out.

The further the story goes, the less sensible it gets; the very next thing the king does is have every spindle in the land burned and their remains stored in the castle. What. Then, he sends the baby away from him and her mother to be raised by three undersized, spectacularly incompetent fairies. Baby Aurora would have died in their care if not for... the protection of Maleficent and Diaval the crow.

Then as time passes there's a bunch of time-filler, masquerading unconvincingly as plot as the fairies act stupid, Aurora grows up, (turning into Elle Fanning) and Maleficent follows her around, pretending to hate her. In my boredom, I did notice that Diaval was an interesting character; he pledges his service to Maleficent after she saves his life, and is singularly and faithfully devoted to his pledge. This doesn't keep him from speaking his mind when he thinks differently from her though; he genuinely cares for Aurora and doesn't attempt to hide it. For a while I thought it would be a great twist if he were the one capable of delivering the curse-breaking smooch.

Besides the feathers for hair he's not at all bad...

Speaking of the smooch, when Prince Phillip (Brenton Thwaites) -- sporting literally the worst hairstyle ever -- shows up at Aurora's house looking for directions it was so awkward and uncomfortable that I wish they had just dispensed with the romance altogether and been done with it already. I guess they somewhat understood how important romance is to a fairytale after all; but not enough to put any effort into making it meaningful -- or even romantic.

A little sense long wanted is restored when Maleficent finally regrets cursing Aurora. That moment is the most compelling the character and actress ever gets. On her sixteenth birthday, Aurora discovers her parentage and her curse, and guesses that it came from Maleficent, sending her off to the castle, and not long after that, sound asleep in a bed.

No surprise there!

The twist is actually legitimate. Over the years Maleficent came to love Aurora like a daughter, and after Phillip's kiss fails to do the trick, Maleficent gives her a farewell kiss on the forehead, promising to protect her even as she sleeps, and Aurora wakes up, without even a hint of a grudge, which was really very nice of her. The problem here being not that Maleficent's love shouldn't have been able to break the spell -- of course it should -- but the implication attached to Phillip's failure that fairytale-brand "true love" -- true, and romantic love -- doesn't exist. And the movie never gives us a reason to believe that it does. In the end Aurora and Phillip still have that super-awkward cutesy attraction, and it's played like a good thing. But, if his kiss didn't work, then he didn't love her, so why would they still end up together?  The most obvious explanation is that selfless love and romantic love are mutually exclusive, and that is a conclusion that I do not appreciate.

Another explanation is "The Frozen Rule": "You can't love someone you just met." I take issue with that one too.

With the climax comes the worst plot hole of the film, when Stefan discovers that Maleficent is in the castle and wages war on her in a parlor. Now, Stefan became an interesting character to me, and I even held out hope that he, like Maleficent, would get a redemptive turn in the end. But I shouldn't have. So Maleficent defeats him, (with the help of Diaval in dragon form, and her wings which apparently can live separate from her and fuse back to her back just in time) but being a good guy doesn't kill him, and just leaves him -- to attack her from behind and fall to an anti-climatic death from a tower. Confusion added to disappointment when I suddenly wondered why Maleficent hadn't just told him that Aurora was awake.

Like, DUHH.

I so wish they had, to see what it would have stemmed. On the one hand, Maleficent's evil motivations were the loss of her wings, and Stefan's was the (impending) loss of his daughter, so once neither had the motivations they should have been able to bury the hatchet. That was my first thought, based on the simple assumption that Stefan loved his daughter, but then I considered the other hand -- that he might not have as much as I'd thought. This goes with the cursing scene -- it bothered me a lot that all he does to defend Aurora from evil-intending Maleficent is to stand there stupidly, asking her to please not to. He never lifts a finger to stop her, suggesting that his life was most important to him.

"I'll just be over here.... destroying your daughter's life!"

And perhaps his hatred of Maleficent was more deeply seeded -- and what started with concern for his daughter morphed into a revenge and power obsession, and guilt-suppression, until he lost sight of where it began. This makes sense with his cold reception of Aurora upon her return. So perhaps knowing she was awake wouldn't have made a difference. But the question is moot; he was never given a chance to go one way or another -- though either would have been interesting to see. Instead his character was cut short, along with my last hope of seeing anything remarkable come out of this movie.

In comparison to the previous 1,500 words of my nit-picking problems, other details of this movie left very little impression. Visually, it was occasionally not bad and slightly memorable, and for the most part the acting wasn't terrible -- though when it was terrible, it really was. The writing and plotting was cheap and filled with holes. And even as the best the film had to offer, Maleficent never interested me. Not being a fan of Angelina Jolie, I wished more screen time for every single character besides her (and those three super-annoying fairies), but Elle Fanning was left with nothing to do, Brenton Thwaites actually detracted from the movie, Sam Riley flew along under the radar, and the promising arc of Sharlto Copley's character turned out to be no more than a long fall and a sudden stop.

Actually, that a bit how the entire movie felt; very long fall; very sudden stop!

Wednesday, October 1, 2014

Upcoming Movie Roundup - October

Last month I actually went and saw a movie I wanted to go and see! The Maze Runner -- and it lived up to it's potential impressively -- click here for my spoiler-free review of it. Now, October.

Look out -- here come ALL THE MOVIES. Not really, but really, there are a lot of new movie this month. Yikes. Which one do you want to see? Which ones have I left out? Which ones should I have not included because they're definitely going to be terrible? Leave a comment -- I need to know these things!


Left Behind
Oct. 3rd (limited); PG-13
I may be the only person in the entire homeschooling Christian community who never read these books. I was never much of a reader as a young person. But even if I had, I don't know if I would be any more interested in this. The RT synopsis makes it sound like just another end-of-the-world/disaster movie like 2012 or The Day After Tomorrow, but then the trailer looks more like one of those "Christian" movies that only Christians will see. Neither bode very well.




Dracula Untold
Oct. 10th; PG-13
Of course I will always want to watch any movie Luke Evans appears in, ever since he made my favorite character from The Hobbit book my favorite of The Hobbit movies as well. I would watch this the exact moment I see it come on TV in a couple years, based on the Luke Evans in a stylized action movie awesomeness, but then there's the vampire thing. There's always something, isn't there?




Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day
Oct. 10th; PG
This looks cheesy. And silly. And kiddie. And I don't care; I want to see it. Anytime a movie releases that isn't animated, and is rated PG, you have to sit up and pay attention -- this is a dying breed. I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't a great film, but I fully expect it too be fun, and diverting... and silly and cheesy.




Whiplash
Oct. 10th (limited); R
This month in "Obscure Movies I'm Interested in Because of That One Actor and Wouldn't Be Otherwise" Part 1: "Miles Teller." Okay, and also, this one's getting great reviews as an intense character piece for Teller and J.K. Simmons.




Kill the Messenger
Oct. 10th (limited); R
Jeremy Renner delivers a message, and then is killed, while doing some great acting. That's what I'm assuming happens in this movie. (It's a true story, so I could find out easily, but where's the fun in that?) Does that assumption make me want to see it any less? (Or any more?) Nope. And, honestly, this would be a lot more interesting to me if it were not based on true events...




The Book of Life
Oct. 17th; PG
*Sighhh* I'm sorry, but why am I supposed to be interested in this? I don't know, so I guess I'm not. Here's the trailer anyway. If you want to see this, please tell me why so I can try to understand.




The Best of Me
Oct. 17th; PG-13
The latest in a very long line of Nicholas Sparks adaptations trying to find the same amount of success as The Notebook. This one has more of my attention than usual by having James Marsden and Michelle Monaghan in the cast. Still, chances of the sap being unbearable even for the cast? I'd say 94%. Also, enjoy as they blatantly steal from The Fault in Our Stars at the beginning of this trailer. (For the record, I agree with Shakespeare.)




Rudderless
Oct. 17th (limited); R
"Obscure Movies I'm Interested in Because of That One Actor and Wouldn't Be Otherwise" Part 2: "Anton Yelchin." Really, though, this looks pretty great. Just ignore Selena Gomez's face there....




Young Ones
Oct. 17th (limited); R
"Obscure Movies I'm Interested in Because of That One Actor and Wouldn't Be Otherwise" Part 3: "Nicholas Hoult." And fine, there's Elle Fanning too. And Michael Shannon. And seriously, this sci-fi/western style is pretty intriguing!




St. Vincent
Oct. 24th (limited); PG-13
Last, but absolutely, in no way least. Mark my words people: This one. This movie will be the best of the month. Bill Murray is an old grump in an upbeat, pop indie. How could this possibly go wrong? At the very worst it'll just be a vehicle for Murray to crack a bunch of jokes which will undoubtedly be funny, because when is Bill Murray ever not funny? I rest my case. Watch this trailer:



Monday, September 1, 2014

Upcoming Movie Roundup - September

Whew! Last month Guardians of the Galaxy released, and did amazingly, and I adored it. So much so that I saw it twice within four days and practically forgot about all the other movies releasing in August. Of course I wasn't expecting much out of them, and probably will see The Giver eventually in spite of it's slightly disappointing reception.

But there are no Marvel movies coming this month, so back to reality. (Unless you count The Winter Soldier's DVD release!)

First we have "Proof that Dan Stevens really has moved on very far from Downton Abbey -- in two parts."

The Guest
Sept. 17th (limited); R
First, The Guest which looks like a oddly creepy, suspenseful and then very violent thriller. Stevens is an American soldier who, after his fiend dies in combat goes to stay with his family as per his request to make sure they're doing okay. Except that there's no way that's all that's going on. And whatever is going on will likely be gory and and strange and mysterious (and well-reviewed, it currently sports %100 on Rotten Tomatoes) and will probably remain mysterious to me for a considerable amount of time. I can't even decide if Dan Stevens is the good guy or the bad guy of this movie.


A Walk Among the Tombstones
Sept. 19th; R
Then there's this one, which actually features Liam Neeson in the starring role. He is an ex-cop-turned shady private investigator, and Dan Stevens is a shady drug dealer who hires him to find the serial killers who murdered his wife. The Guest may be getting critical praise, but this one seems more likely for popular success -- a straightforward violent shoot-em-up featuring Liam Neeson not having to follow any laws? People like those. I gave up on trying to find this film's trailer on YouTube, so if you want to see it, here's a link to it on Rotten Tomatoes


The Maze Runner
Sept 19th; PG-13
This is what has all my interest for this month. The book is currently sitting directly to my left, and I am anxious to start reading. Though it's unlikely to replace The Hunger Games as my favorite dystopian teen work of fiction, it has plenty to recommend it and set it apart -- at least enough to be enjoyable. The fact that the leading character is a guy, and it isn't written in the first person already differentiates it considerably. Besides that, the movie caught my attention with the casting of Will Poulter, aka the very deserving Eustace Clarence Scrubb, and probably the best thing about the The Voyage of the Dawn Treader movie, and Thomas Brodie-Sangster, aka Ferb Fletcher, the silent wisdom of the Phineas and Ferb duo, and everything else from Doctor Who, to Love Actually, to Game of Thrones. I don't however, have any clue who the guy playing the main character is.




The Boxtrolls
Sept. 26th; PG
If I were to venture a guess, I would say that this seems most likely to be the most successful movie of this month, (at least of the ones I've chosen to write about) the cute and original claymation about trolls that live underground and use boxes for clothes. If I've just  made it sound utterly boring that probably somewhat reflects my opinion of the movie. Some things inexplicably never spark an interest, and this has been one of them, in spite of its cast including one of my favorites Elle Fanning. Of course, I've only seen the teaser trailer, so maybe a full trailer will help. If you'll excuse me.... ... Hmm. Okay, so there's a plot and stuff, that's always a good sign.




What's on your radar this month?

Thursday, May 1, 2014

Upcoming Movie Roundup - May

Look out: here come the first round of the summer blockbusters!


The Amazing Spider-Man 2
May 2nd: PG-13
I admit: I'm a little worried about the villain count in this movie. Did no one learn anything from Maguire's Spider-Man 3? Well, hopefully they learned a lot, and the overwhelming amount of baddies is the only thing being repeated. This one has so much more potential anyway because I actually like Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone. Plus more bad guys and other characters means more cool actors to play them, like Jamie Foxx, who appears to be the main villain, and Paul Giamatti, and Dane DeHaan, who I've never watched before, but already love his version of Harry, and Felicity Jones, B.J. Novak, and Celeborn; Marton Csokas. Yep, by the reviews I've seen so far this doesn't live up to what we've come to expect from our superhero movies, but I doubt I'll have a hard time finding a few things to enjoy.




Godzilla
May 16th; PG-13
I feel like I've seen this before... Well, the monster looks impressive, but it doesn't look like there's a guarantee of anything more than that that the version with Matthew Broderick didn't give besides being newer and therefore cooler and more expensive. Or maybe I'm missing the appeal. The main appeal for me is that Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Elizabeth Olsen are starring -- it's kinda like a preview for Age of Ultron!




X-Men: Days of Future Past
May 23rd; PG-13
Well obviously this is a must-see. X-Men and the young X-Men "reboot" come together in a complicated, the-fate-of-the-earth-in-the-balance plot? Sounds a lot like Doctor Who meets superheroes, so count me in! Plus, with the best of the two casts added together, I don't think I've ever seen the likes of these huge names together before: Hugh Jackman, James McAvoy AND Patrick Stewart, and Michael Fassbender AND Ian McKellen. And then of course Jennifer Lawrence, Nicholas Hoult, and lots and lots of recognizable faces. And I did mention Jennifer Lawrence, right? Yeah. It would take a lot to makes this not be an awesome success.




Maleficent
May 30th; PG-13
Sleeping Beauty gets the "Wicked" treatment? The trailer implies that the baddie, played by Anelina Jolie, isn't so bad after all, which isn't exactly something I'm super interested to see. It looks epic and pretty (or awesome) and promises a deeper plot with conspiracies, and lots at steak. And they obviously had a great time updating the possibly-not-evil-after-all lady. But in too many ways I'm reminded of Snow White and the Hunstman. Will this be the new take on a classic fairytale that finally meets with success? The most drawing thing for me is the talented Elle Fanning as Aurora.



The summer movie season begins! So what is first on your to-see list?

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Super 8



J. J. Abrams and Steven Spielberg team up as director and producer, and create a very traditional Spielberg-like movie that also has an unmistakable Abrams-like modern feel, and is set in the seventies. How does this mash-up work? Let's just say that quality filmmaking which comes from a love of the craft is something that will always be in style.


It’s 1979; Joe Lamb is a thirteen year-old, pretty average sort of kid. But his mom recently died in a work accident, and things between him and his dad are strained and distant as they try to muddle through on their own. Time continues almost lifelessly. He hangs out with his buddies, riding bikes, joking around and making super 8 zombie movies. Things slowly settle into a normal. One midnight, filming secretly at a train station, the group of friends witness a mysterious train crash, and are caught in the middle of a dangerous event that none of them will ever forget – it’s like something straight out of a movie!

The plot is pretty straight-forward with no big twists, but through a unique attention to the deep characters and relationships, it’s compelling and entertaining, even without the sci-fi element. And I love that the monster, though fully created and fully capable of dominating the screen was hidden from us as long as it was hidden from our heroes. It’s a classic trick learned accidentally by Spielberg, and used here brilliantly by Abrams. In fact if I had to describe Super 8 in one word it would be classic. Not saying it’s “a classic” but that it is classic; totally, unabashedly classic. And sometimes that’s exactly what we need; a popcorn flick that can be called neither a mind-bender or mindless, but just a happy medium, well made, and ready for you to lose yourself in it.


Typically, film heroes are slightly older than the target audience, but even though this movie is about a bunch of kids, it’s not really a kid’s movie. It’s a nostalgic movie, and relating to younger characters helps that effect pleasantly. The kids really do make this movie. Reminiscent of The Goonies, they goof off, tease each other, and freak out with hilarious realism. And the actors playing them were equally amazing. Outstanding are Joel Courtney, playing the lead in his very first movie, but you would never know it by watching his superb performance, and Elle Fanning, playing Alice, the newcomer to the group of boys, is the most talented young actress I’ve seen. The other boys are more supporting cast, and their performances are lesser, but mostly only in terms of screen time. Obviously a lot of attention went to casting the kids, and the result was rewarding. Kyle Chandler as Joe’s dad and deputy of the town is also worth mentioning, but this movie really belongs to the kids.


It seems like it’s too easy to make a “successful” movie these days. Just throw together a script that involves saving the world, cast a bunch of pretty actors, and then drown everything in special effects. And people will throw down money watch it. No doubt a few movies fitting that description just popped into your head… like Transformers, perhaps? But not everyone goes that lazy way, some people thankfully still give their films all the attention they need, and are rewarded with something you could actually call art; a real, good movie. Abrams is one of those people, and with this movie, he creates a lovely homage to classic filmmaking, then goes a step further, adding in elements that make modern movies great as well. 

Sure, it has its share of flaws, but they’re easily ignorable in favor of the involving story and characters. Super 8 encourages us to be nostalgic, get lost, and feel at home in its brilliant, modern blast from the past, even if we never happened to have lived there. A sweet, thrilling and compelling ride, it reminds us yet again that well-made, thoughtful movies with heart can also be visually exciting, and full of fun, and laugh-out-loud moments. It’s the sort of movie that threatens to extinguish those half-hearted, factory line films, and though I doubt they will go extinct anytime soon, I will always look forward to when – every once in a while – a remarkable movie like this one jumps out and surprises us, then entertains and involves us through a contagious love for the cinema.

- 4.5/5 stars