If you call it a "Part 2" it's easier to make people swallow that it's not just another unnecessary sequel. Heck, even I got drawn in, and I despise the idea of sequels as a rule. What got me interested though, was adding Cillian Murphy to the cast to fill the hole John Krasinski's character leaves. Krasinski is still directing though, and this time he's also writing the whole thing. For the first movie he bought and tweaked an original script, and now he's trying his hand at expanding the story alone.
It's debatable whether the story wants expanding in the first place, let alone if the continuation settled on is any good.
We pick up exactly where we left off (after a flashback prologue). Emily Blunt and children leave their farmhouse to find one of their neighbors whose fire they would see from their water tower. This is Emmett (Cillian Murphy), but he's not as interested in playing father figure and man-of-the-house as the Abbott family wishes. He's already lost his family and is now a Joel from The Last of Us, lone wolf type character. However, Regan (Millicent Simmonds) has her hearing aid device that incapacitates the aliens and when she finds a radio station that is still broadcasting, she's determined to use it to help other survivors fight back. When she leaves alone, Emmett finds himself going after her, and then along with her, despite his protests.
The story splits then into two plotlines. The one with Regan and Emmett is interesting; straightforward in its goal, with ample opportunities for exploration. The one with Evelyn (Emily Blunt), Marcus (Noah Jupe) and the baby, however, is small potatoes, with no goal at all other than to survive when the aliens inevitably find them (after a year and a half they're still terrible at living quietly.) It tries to give Marcus an opportunity to become a man, but must make him even more of a frightened useless child first to make the change clear. It smacks of fishing for story filler rather than letting the story push along at a natural pace. Because both plotlines were focused on equally despite unequal value, neither was developed fully.
Abandoning Emily Blunt's plotline altogether would've been a crazy, bold, and I think rewarding, move.
The Emmett-Regan plotline could have been a movie all in itself, but it had corners cut to make room for the pointless other plotline. Everything happens too fast for them, and comes too easily. The two have a lot of potential together, and I liked their chemistry, but they slip too quickly into a father-daughter dynamic, especially after Regan's rough relationship with Lee, turned to deep loyalty. She initially rejects even the idea of Emmett becoming even a temporary protector. Then warms to him after one incident. They also have a language barrier, in that he cannot sign. This is got over easily and is never an issue in high-stakes situations. Then an evil tribe of cannibals is set up as a non-alien threat, but only amounts to one scene once they show up.
It's rush, rush, rush, and then it's over and I can list on one hand the important things that were accomplished. I don't even need all five fingers! If it needed to end at that point to allow Part III all the plot it needs to wrap things up, then why not let this story sit back more and develop relationships? Why not explore the themes of family further, instead of leaving themes out altogether? Did Krasinski not realize those were the things that made the first one good? Or is he simply incapable of creating on that level? He is a good director, but he needs a good script with clear purpose, else his movies lack direction, and those satisfying moments of resolution that made A Quiet Place stand out.
"More of the same," but only superficially, isn't really more of the same, is it?
I feel like A Quiet Place Part II's only purpose was to set up the pieces for A Quiet Place Part III, so I guess I'll hang on and see how the payoff goes. Despite the definite downgrade in writing, this movie maintains its winning premise, with the same intense alien thriller feel to it, and tentatively expands the lore on its featured creatures. The mortal flaw is simply that it's lazier; messy next to the lovingly crafted original. Even with nothing to do Emily Blunt is good. Millicent Simmonds steps up her game to great results, and Cillian Murphy is a vital addition that makes the whole endeavor better than it has a right to be. If nothing else, I'll watch Part III to see more of him.
I did go to the theater in February... to see 1917 again. I may or may not have a problem. But I didn't go for anything else only because Emma doesn't have a wide release until next weekend. So I'll definitely see a 2020 movie this month, and very much looking forward to it!
I also caught up with Parasite just before it took Best Picture at the Oscars. A fascinating film, if not one I feel in love with on a personal level. You can read my review of it here!
I think I might be sliding into 2020 mode now. So let's got to those March movies! What are you planning to see this month?
Onward
In theaters March 6th; PG
Between the releases Toy Story 3 and Toy Story 4, I've been interested in exactly one Pixar film: Incredibles 2. So I'm surprised that they have my attention again with the original Onward. I hear tell it's not as "great" as Pixar is known for, but I've been disenfranchised with the franchise for roughly 10 years. So either this is even worse, or maybe everyone else not falling for it is a sign that I will. Because I really love fantasy. And adventures. And this has both in spades -- and flaunts it. I don't think the plot will need to be fantastic for me to enjoy it, which is all I want. I also like the cast of Tom Holland and Chris Pratt in the leads. Maybe it won't be Great Pixar, but it at least looks like Pixar that's successfully catered to me.
The Way Back
Normally I'd write this kind of film off instantly; sport plots rarely appeal to me. Sport dramas even less. And if it must be sport dramas, basketball is not recommended. I've had enough of that in my lifetime. And I do not care for Ben Affleck. But. The director is Gavin O'Connor, who made Warrior, a sport drama that broke the mold for me, so despite all the marks against this one, I'll keep an eye on it because of that.
Bloodshot
In theaters March 13th; PG-13
I will watch anything with Toby Kebbell in it, and that's as complex as this needs to get. If the plot, action, and Vin Diesel are good that'll be nice, but it doesn't really matter to me. But... I kinda wonder how this premise could be any good without a R-for-violence rating. And for some reason I thought it was a Netflix film, and so I'm disappointed that I'll have to wait to see it streaming. And Toby Kebbell doesn't even appear to be the main villain. But like I said, those things are irrelevant to whether or not I'll see it.
A Quiet Place Part II
In theaters March 20th; NR
Do I wish they'd have just stopped, left great enough alone and not made more at the risk of ruining everything? Of course I do. I will I see this sequel anyway? Yes. Yes, I will. And what's more I will be relatively excited for it -- because John Krasinski must have heard about my reservations and decided to distract me from them by adding Cillian Murphy to the cast. A cheap trick, that is working beautifully. I'll probably see it in theaters. But gosh I hope it's a worthy sequel. Those things are a rarity these days.
Mulan
In theaters March 27th; PG-13
Until the remake Atlantis: The Lost Empire or Treasure Planet, I will not be excited for a Live Action Disney Remake. But this has potential to be the best one since Cinderella -- simply because it doesn't appear to be a paint-by-numbers copy of the animation. It still looks like a Disney movie, but also like it'll maybe try to be a good film, too. So hey... maybe it will be. I won't get my hopes up. But it has a better chance than most, I think.
Unexpectedly, I only saw two new movies in November -- Overlord (review) was brisk, splashy, weird and violent, and Buster Scruggs (review) was darkly hilarious, hauntingly memorable, and also kinda violent. Both excellent films. I also saw The Night Eats the World (review) which came out back in July, and it was also excellent; fascinating, and thought-provoking.
Otherwise, November was a bit disappointing on the blockbuster front. I thought for sure I'd see Robin Hood, but after it got universally slammed we figured it'd be more fun to wait until we can stream it and make fun of it without bothering people. And it was almost the same deal with Fantastic Beasts 2. Ralph Breaks the Internet still looks good, and Green Book. I'm actually feeling a need for a solid, big, blockbuster. So good thing December potentially has four of them, right?
But, it's also Oscar season. I'm not very big on Oscar season. Sometimes awards can urge me to watch movies I had no interest in before, but mostly it just annoys me because of how many movies seem to only exist to try to bait awards. Like there's suddenly this bothersome disconnect between art in film and entertainment in film; there are films made to be seen and loved by people, and films made to be rewarded by faceless arbiters, and they only intersect occasionally. And only, it seems, at this time of year.
I don't want to rain on people's parade, I'm just saying this as a kind of disclaimer, because I find that most of the year I'm more interested arty than I am now, because they reek of Oscar-bait, whether they're meant to or not. It automatically lessens my interest, and I'm aware of how biased that is, so I'm putting it out there, so that when I talk cynically about a movie that may not deserve it, you'll know where I'm coming from and can judge for yourself.
Disclaimer/rant/TED talk over. Let's get to the trailers!
Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle
Dec 7th(Netflix); PG-13
Well this one's definitely not gonna be getting awards. Andy Serkis' directorial debut is a new version of The Jungle Book, that, as far as I can tell, doesn't go back to the book for source but still is trying to compete with Jon Favreau's remake, even though it came out two years ago. Serkis does have a good cast -- himself, Christian Bale, Cate Blanchett, Benedict Cumberbatch, Tom Hollander, Naomi Harris, (and more!) and it focuses a bit more on the humans, which is a good idea imo, since it's a live-action movie. Who knows how it's executed. Kinda seems like the plot ventures into a tired "animals vs man" direction. I still haven't seen Favreau's, so maybe I'll get to both of them this month and see who wins the competition!
Mary Queen of Scotts
Dec 7th(limited); R
This one's ideal bait for the Oscars and has been building hype all year. Saoirse Ronan and Margot Robbie, with support from the likes of Guy Pearce, David Tennant and Jack Lowden. It's a period drama so there's costumes and locations a great need for excellent cinematography, and history so the roles are a meaty challenge. It can even sneak a little modern politics in there! I'd like to see it someday because I'm a fan of the cast, but it's not urgent.
Vox Lux
Dec 7th(limited) R
Looks like Natalie Portman is out for another Oscar. She has one, right? *research* Yes. I'd be crazy to deny that she has skill, and she clearly puts a ton of effort into her roles, but I've always been neutral toward her at best. For complicated reasons but I think the short version is she tries too hard. Everything she does feels forced to me. Anyway that's all to say that this movie looks fine. Actually I wouldn't mind watching it at all, but mostly out of curiosity because I have no idea what the plot is, and the visual look is kinda fascinating.
Ben is Back
Dec 7th(limited) R
Seems like a very solid drama, but watching the trailer was just making me feel dread about the plot. I bet Lucas Hedges and Julia Roberts put in some fine performances, and I bet if I watched it I'd enjoy or at least appreciate it, but, I think (cynically I know) it'll probably just fall through the cracks.
Dumplin'
Dec 7th(Netflix); PG-13
Kay, see, this looks super silly, but because it's going to be on Netflix I'll probably watch it instantly and have a fun time. That's it. That's all I have to say. (Has Netflix become the new and improved Disney Channel??)
Once Upon a Deadpool
Dec 12th; PG-13!
I was fine with the content level of the original version of Deadpool 2, but since this re-edit has added scenes and Fred Savage it might be worth checking out. I guess that's exactly the point, isn't it? Make it PG-13 so kids can see it; make new scenes so everyone else will see it again! But I can't imagine it being better than the original version. Unless the new scenes are downright spectacular to make me not miss what they cut out. For me, rated R for violence in Deadpool is pretty necessary, (I guess we'll find out how necessary!) and the language occasionally helped with the humor. Occasionally.
Spider-Man Into the Spider-Verse
Dec 14th; PG
I can't even watch this trailer without grinning. When I first heard about this movie I dismissed it, thinking because it's animated it was for extreme fans, or part of a series or something. Of course, the second I finally saw the trailer my head exploded, and it became one of my most anticipated movies of the year! I can only imagine it knocking my socks off and I can't wait for it to happen -- it looks so beautiful, with the colors the animation style, and there's a real plot, and personal stakes, but it's not all revealed in the trailer so there's intrigue. If it's somehow not good, it's going to break my heart because I've completely forgotten how to be cautious and I have sky-high expectations. Can't wait to see it!
Mortal Engines
Dec 14th; PG-13
Peter Jackson takes on steampunk fantasy, and I wish he'd forgotten about The Hobbit and got to this sooner! It doesn't have me fully confident in its quality, but I am totally confident in that I'll enjoy it no matter what, because this is exactly my deal. I hope it'll reach the heights I imagine it's capable of, but I can't imagine not a having a blast in the theater even with flaws. I'm already a fan of Robert Sheehan and I really like the look of the lead girl Hera Hilmar, and then we have Hugo Weaving as the villain. It looks beautiful and spectacularly designed; it looks like a high-flying classic adventure plot; I can't wait to see it, even if it's made solely for me!
The Mule
Dec 14th(limited); R
Because it's a Clint Eastwood movie should I just trust that it's good and ignore that it seems like there's no way the story ends happily? I mean, it can end not happy and still be good. I don't know how, but I guess Clint Eastwood does. Somehow the idea of Bradley Cooper and Michael Pena being cop partners is very appealing to me though.
Mary Poppins Returns
Dec 19th; PG
Since the original wasn't animated, this Disney classic gets the soft-reboot-in-the-form-of-a-sequel treatment instead. I want to be okay with this movie. I want to enjoy Emily Blunt (she is charm itself) and Lin-Manuel Miranda, and the new songs, and the homage it pays to the original. But the cynic in me doubts that it's homage at all, but perhaps just banking (ha!) off the original. I hope it's not just a rehash and finds justification for it's existence, but unfortunately, the only way to know for sure is to watch it. And I only want to watch it if it is worthy on it's own merit. If Michael has the exact same arc as Mr. Banks in the original (which seems very likely) I may have to get annoyed, no matter how magical Emily Blunt is.
Bird Box
Dec 21st(Netflix); NR
So I'm definitely not the first person to say this, but hear me out: A Quiet Place, but with sight. It's a Netflix release and it's got Sandra Bullock instead of Emily Blunt so I seriously doubt it'll be as good (I do like Bullock sometimes I promise), but hopefully it's not actually as similar as it seems. It's Netflix so chances of my giving it a chance are pretty high, but there's not much interest there at all. I dunno, it's just not intriguing me. Except: why is it called Bird Box?
Aquaman
Dec 21st; PG-13
Who even cares at this point? Either it'll be the worst thing the DCEU puts out, or the best, or somewhere in between. I'm going to see it anyway, so I'll let you know. I've recently become a bit of a fan of Patrick Wilson (the Conjuring movies can take credit, so that's bonus points for James Wan too) so I'm kind of looking forward to him being the bad guy (at least it's not an animated bad guy haha right??) and I think it's funny how much like The Little Mermaid everything seems. Honestly, I seriously doubt it'll be the worst DCEU offering, but I do kinda expect to be disappointed. Also, underwater scenes in movies make me extremely uncomfortable. So. I expect to be uncomfortable.
Bumblebee
Dec 21st; PG-13
Well it's set in the late 80's, so how bad could it actually be? They finally scaled back on a Transformer movie, getting the main focus down to two, and they put some style into the trailer, so hopefully that translates to the movie... and already this has a high chance of being my favorite Transformers film. Still, that's not saying much. I feel like this is one I'll wait for steaming on, unless there's a huge positive response or something. Hailee Steinfeld is good... Bumblebee is the best transformer character... it could very easily be a very decent movie.
Holmes and Watson
Dec 25th; PG-13
Like... it looks real bad. But at the same time, it makes fun of the other modern takes on Sherlock Holmes and I just respect it so much for that. It's probably gonna be terrible. I will continue telling myself this in an effort to keep from getting excited about it. Yeah. It's probably going to be terrible. It just... they do all the obvious jokes! And there's Will Ferrell and John C. Reilly, and Ralph Fiennes is Moriarty! And they say modern things but it's set in the proper time! It's so weird! Ugh. I dunno. It's probably going to be terrible. But here's the thing: if it's good it'll be because it just doesn't care, and that's kinda rare these days.
Destroyer
Dec 25th(limited); R
How come Toby Kebbell has second billing but doesn't even appear in the trailer while Sebastian Stan is everywhere but so far down the cast list that I discovered he was in the movie by recognizing him? Anyway, I watch all movies I can find that have Toby Kebbell in them, and I watch all movie I can find that have Sebastian Stand in them. So I guess this will be a case of two birds with one stone. If the movie's good that'll make three! And I don't know, but it looks like it could be good maybe. Not naturally my cup of tea, but it could be. Nicole Kidman stars and is kinda unrecognizable.
Mysterious creatures who hunt by sound have invaded and prowl the earth, and a family lives silently to survive among them. John Krasinski takes a giant step into the artistry of writing and directing, and though his movie is often quiet, it delivers a deafening bang.
Not his first directing or writing effort, but there's something special and significant about this one. Like he's crossed a boundary.
But he doesn't do it alone; the original screenplay was written by Bryan Woods and Scott Beck, who I'm sure deserve plenty of credit even if Krasinski did additions/changes/rewrites/whatever it is he did, because the story -- from its basic premise right up to the finely tuned more superfluous moments -- is masterful. Krasinski stars with his real-life wife Emily Blunt, and they both tear up the screen with strong, emotional, and nuanced performances. The kids who play their children also do a great job, especially Millicent Simmonds, the oldest, whose talents and character importance is right up there with the adults.
She's deaf in real-life, and her character is deaf in the story, which is why the family is all fluent in sign language, only 80 days into an apocalypse that requires silence. The practical, sensible way they live with this unprecedented restriction is thoughtful and full of rich detail. I love when movies make me think and ponder what I would do in an impossible situation, and that's the first thing this film does remarkably well. A low-key, semi-scifi culture that is endlessly interesting even without the monsters.
I love how the anger had to be quiet, too.
The next thing this film does right is, it has a family drama at the heart of its horror/thriller plot. It's relatively simple -- simple enough to be carried properly with limited dialogue -- but effective in wonderful, heartbreaking, and stake-raising ways in turn. In a first viewing, this element, and the more internal, softer, warmer moments that make it up are overshadowed by an extremely enhanced sense of dread that something terrible could happen at any time. The juxtaposition of the family moments and the looming terror was far too effective to be unintentional, but I'm looking forward to fully appreciating the moments of peace and internal conflict next time.
It's fitting then, that the terror and suspense are the most prominent element since they are what makes a theater experience exciting. This is the side that Krasinski gets more than right; it's not just suspense building up to some good scares; this film is a study in tension. It's an artful exploration of fear and terror of the basest kind, and never lets up through its whole runtime. The monsters are scary, but when they show up, it's a relative relief from the tension, because what is frightening in this film is not the thing that comes to eat you, but the thing that draws them there -- noise. Watching this film, you fear sound.
This movie features the most effective jump-scare I've ever witnessed. Usually I hate jump-scares, but they are so appropriate here!
And when you fear sound, the potential for sound creates tension. And the potential for sound is so wonderfully, maniacally constant, that I got a backache from being tense for an hour and a half straight. I love how boiled down the horror element is. As terrifying as those creatures would be in real-life, there's too much distance between them and reality; so the movie digs down to the core, to a practically untapped reserve of the origins of fear, and exploits it beautifully. John Krasinski does a masterful job in putting the focus where it should be, for the exact right amount of time, to get the most enhanced effect possible.
Every moment had to have been meticulously assembled. The plot structure runs smoothly without telegraphing its direction, and with even pacing -- nothing is under-explored, and no scenes become stagnate. Sound and lack of sound is used with special care to excellent results. I especially liked the times we would hear from the daughter's perspective. Camera placement and other visual aspects isn't as purely dedicated to enhancing the tension as the audio is, but gets occasional terrifying moments to shine; otherwise the film is consistently beautiful, but not in a distracting, overly artsy way.
It's very bold and simple, visually. I really liked it.
Though there is some dialogue here and there, plus the captioned sign language, the bulk of the story is told through visual methods. Essentially a silent film -- though sound is important, words are not -- it utilizes the fundamentals of visual storytelling. Characters don't just sit down and have a conversation, they express themselves physically. And there is no stilted, lazy exposition. Instead, we have to glean explanations and translate expression ourselves. It's presented in a sure way that's not difficult to understand, but the mere fact that it isn't handed to us unearned is commendable.
Because of the silent-film type style, the plot is pretty straightforward and the drama fairly basic. This is the closest thing to a flaw the movie has. No mind-blowing twist or turns, no complicated character motivations to study -- they're just a normal family trying to survive in a permanent dire situation. And occasionally this stretches into plot events. Sometimes things happen because they need to for the story to move, and it comes across like very bad luck. While this shakes the realism slightly for me, faulting it for that seems like nit-picking in the pettiest sense.
To quote Sabrina: "More isn't always better, Linus. Sometimes it's just more." This movie refrains from overreaching.
This film allows a few traditional tropes on the side, while focusing on what it wants to do exceptionally with fervent vigor. The result is a streamlined film that follows a narrow path with absolute dedication, and takes its elements of focus to envelope-pushing extremes. It has constant, immaculate, smartly crafted tension. It has a reason for you to care, displayed through powerful performances, especially from Emily Blunt. It's thrilling and emotional, but not pushy or contriving. And it's artistic in the most natural, unpretentious and honest way possible.
Completely unrelenting, and wholly welcoming, A Quiet Place is a terrifying but open place, inviting you to enter and lend yourself to its power; it may be frightening, but it returns you safe again when it's through, with a heart fuller than when you arrived.
Happy Spring, happy April, happy April Fool's Day, and most importantly, happy Easter and Resurrection Sunday!
In March I saw my one must-see, that also happened to be my most-anticipated film of 2018 -- Ready Player One! It didn't hit the highest heights that my imagination hoped it had the potential for, but it was every bit as fun as the book, boasting the same greatness and the same flaws alike. And the cast is perfection. I'll write a review soon, but for now I'm listening to a playlist of the music and relishing the experience.
Still have interest in Thoroughbreds and Isle of Dogs. I need to get better at actually going out and seeing these non-blockbuster releases in theaters. Lean on Pete also hasn't hit a theater near me yet, but looks like it's expanding this month. I'm on Easter break this week, so maybe I should do a serious movie splurge.
What did you see in March? And what looks good in April?
A Quiet Place
Apr 6th; PG-13
My second-most anticipated movie of the year after Ready Player One. After I see this I'll have to come up with some new most-anticipated for the rest of the year's eight months. John Krasinski directs, and stars with his real-life wife Emily Blunt, and I'm sold on that alone. Plot-wise I don't want to know much, but horror/thriller vibes are blatantly obvious, which I'm definitely cool with. Something about this movie reminds me of 10 Cloverfield Lane, and I'm not even worried that influence will make my expectations too high because the movie has been getting rave reviews so far.
You Were Never Really Here
Apr 6th; R
Joaquin Phoenix looks intense. This movie looks intense. It's probably good but it's also probably not exactly my kind of movie.
The Endless
Apr 6th; NR
The color grading make it look like it's on the cheaper side of low-budget indie movies, but the scifi/Lovecraft thing it has going is undeniably appealing. The scifi side of it doesn't look cheap either. I'll be very interested to watch if I ever see it floating around on a streaming site somewhere.
Rampage
Apr 13th; PG-13
Ugh, this looks so dumb. Not that it appears to be trying to be anything else, but it's just not appealing to me. I'd rather watch Skull Island again, or Jumanji. If this movie winds up being dumb but genuinely good and fun like those movies, I will be very surprised. But still, I'll probably watch it at some point, if only to roll my eyes at it.
Borg vs McEnroe
Apr 13th; R
Not that it sounds boring to watch Shia LaBeouf get beat in an epic game of tennis by a Swedish fellow, but to be perfectly honest, the main appeal of this movie for me is that the Swedish side of things is done in Swedish -- so it's half a foreign language film. I don't think I've ever seen Stellan Skarsgård act in his native language. (This trailer isn't green-band approved -- language warning.)
Marrowbone
Apr 13th; NR
It's a creepy horror movie set in what looks like the 50's, and it has Charlie Heaton in it, so I guess I have to watch it. The nice thing is, it's releasing on Amazon -- so probably not the greatest quality film, but that okay by me. Maybe it won't be too scary.
Avengers: Infinity War
Apr 27th; PG-13
Oh yeah, I forgot about this one! lol.
Here's the thing about this movie: I don't care.
I'm going to go see it, but I'm not particularly excited about watching all my favorite superheroes come together and not get enough screentime in a 2-hour, 40-min movie, just so that some drama can be milked and one or two people can get killed off in what I assume will be the most forced, senseless, and irritating ways possible. So sue me. When the ads boast about how Marvel has been building to this for 10 years it irks me, because of how dismissive it is of previous Marvel films -- films that were sometimes this close to being great apart from their shared universe but perhaps weren't simply because they only needed to serve to sell the next film. Even this film is just going to point to next year's Avengers 4. That kind of mindset makes me want to quit with Marvel altogether, but I guess I'm in too deep now. Spider-Man and Bucky are my excuse.
The House of Tomorrow
Apr 27th; NR
Aw, this looks cute. Like a retry of The Space Between Us for Asa Butterfield, but not ridiculous and painfully awkward. I guess he likes playing naive outsiders getting introduced to the world. This one also has Nick Offerman, Ellen Burstyn and the Second Edition Wolff -- Alex Wolff. Are he and Nat twins, because I seriously cannot tell them apart? *research* No. They act so similarly too though -- it's like Nat went back in time and switched the mole on his chin to his lip so he could make more teenage movies. Anyways, this movie. Looks neat. Will check out.
As I predicted, I didn't go to the theater in September. I am still interested to see The Magnificent Seven and Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children though, in spite of the not-fantastic reviews, and Deepwater Horizon a little more than before, because of the not-at-all-bad reviews.
I may not get to the theater again this month, (unless I make a point to go, which I may try) as there are no must-see-in-theater releases, but there certainly are a few very interesting releases that may become must-sees if they turn out as good as they look.
Did you see anything in September? Anything look good to you in October?
The Girl on the Train
Oct 7th; R
I read the book. And I enjoyed it, which was nice since I've been having bad luck with books lately. But after reading it and rewatching the trailer, I have very little interest and very little confidence in this film. Emily Blunt and Haley Bennett are well-cast I think, but otherwise -- even though I love Luke Evans and Rebecca Ferguson -- it's kinda off. Also the film isn't set in England, but NYC, which takes away a LOT of appeal for me. And what's the point of doing that, anyway? Unnecessary changes are indicators of bad adaptations for me. They've also amped up the sexiness a whole lot. So maybe they're trying to increase appeal and tweak it to be more exciting. It is an introverted story, and the book's strongest aspect was the writing style, which can't translate. If it releases to acclaim I'll probably watch it someday, but as of now they've lost me. We'll see if I'm the only one.
The Accountant
Oct 14th; R
This is an excellent trailer. And it looks to be a very unique story, and Ben Affleck is always at his best when he does the trifecta of writing directing and starring, so I'm pretty confident about this film's quality already. Based on the title only I was wondering how exciting it could be, but after watching the trailer, I think it's got that covered too.Very interested to see how this does.
The River Thief
Oct 14th (limited); NR
Ever since I saw Super 8 I've been waiting for Joel Courtney to be in more movies, and finally one has crossed my path. You can't tell much about plot from this trailer, but the write-up makes it out to be interesting and promising. And it certainly has a beautiful look to it which you can see from the trailer -- lots of great shots. In a lot of ways it reminds me of Mud, which is very appealing to me, since that one of favorite films. If it turns out half as good a Mud it'd still be a good movie!
Jack Reacher: Never Go Back
Oct 21st; NR
(I can't find a MPAA rating, but I'm assuming it'll be PG-13.) The first Jack Reacher film didn't impress me much, but right now the sequel's actually looking to be an improvement! Firstly, Tom Cruise doesn't just do sequels for the sake of doing a sequel. The way I heard it he wasn't even interested in a sequel until he had a good idea for one. Then there's the addition of Cobie Smulders who is excellent at being an action heroine. She might be the biggest appeal of this actually. And of course there's the fact that there's no Mission: Impossible film this year, so why not? You gotta have you Tom Cruise action flick fix!
Keeping Up with the Joneses
Oct 21st; PG-13
I'm gonna go ahead and include this movie since I've watched the trailer twice now, though I'm not very interested in the film. And by "not very interested" I mean "really really not interested almost at all." The most interesting part is Gal Gadot who is cool, and it would be neat to see her play a spy... and comedy for that matter too. The premise is not bad, if typical, and could make for a fun action comedy, but based on the trailer, it's not gonna be of good quality in either the comedy or the action sides.
In a Valley of Violence
Oct 21st; R
I like the look of this movie. The trailer is very simple, exposition-heavy, and not terribly eye-catching, but that is actually what got my attention. It feels classic, like an honest-to-goodness straight-forward western tale of old. Ethan Hawke is the lead, John Travolta is the baddie, and Karen Gillan's there too. Yeah. I'm liking the look of this movie. A lot.
Last month I surprised myself, and saw a movie in theaters that I didn't even include in my March roundup. I was planning to mention 10 Cloverfield Lane, but decided against it just as I was about to watch the trailer, because I realized I didn't have anything to say about it. I didn't know anything about it, and didn't want to -- I didn't even want to see the trailer -- I just had an interest in seeing the movie. So one night I was like, "Hey guys, wanna watch Cloverfield?" and my brothers were like, "Sure." So we did. And once it was over I was like, "Should we go see 10 Cloverfield Lane tomorrow?" and they were like, "Heck yes." So we did. And you can read my spoiler-free review of it here, but honestly you shouldn't unless you've seen it already. I'll just say that it's the kind of movie that reminds me of why I love movies in the first place. So I guess I should have mentioned it, but at the same time, I'm glad I didn't -- and didn't look into it too much.
Usually looking through the new releases of the month introduces me to a few lesser known releases that pique my interest, but not so much this time. And the bigger releases aren't hugely exciting either. You never know, but right now it looks like I may be saving my money for Civil War!
My thoughts on one of these is not true -- for April Fool's Day -- guess which one?
Hardcore Henry
April 8th: R
It stars my personal favorite Sharlto Copley, it's exclusively shot from first person perspective, and it's currently getting lots of praise for it's unique and fun non-stop and innovative action and impressively involving plot line. It is the only movie on this list that I'm currently planning to see, but the only problem is that the rating is too much for me. So I'll wait until I can watch it cut, when I plan to enjoy the heck out of it!
High Strung
April 8th: PG
About a ballet dancer and a violin player who "don't fit in" and go up against the odds, this looks like a nice, appropriate dancing movie with a slight music-twist that will be very appealing to fans of the genre. It looks predictable, a little sentimental, and not terribly deep, but hey -- that's the way these kinds of film's work best.
The Jungle Book
April 15th: PG
The new, live action Jungle Book. Well, so far it's been a lot of showmanship. It's got a good-looking cast, and obviously takes much pride in the appearance of its realistically animated jungle animals. (Am I the only one wondering why they're so disproportionately large jungle animals though?) This trailer shows that the film seems to actually have a plot, and there's a lot of hype, but I still need to be convinced that it's gonna be, you know, a good movie.
The Green Room
April 15th; R
"Strong brutal graphic violence" the rating explanation says. I've never seen a violence rating look so foreboding before! Anyway this one's a horror film staring Patrick Stewart as the villain, and among others, Anton Yelchin and Imogen Poots as his victims. I like Anton Yelchin a lot, but this one looks too scary for me. I'm not pulled that far into the horror genre! It's getting high reviews though, so it looks like a hit for those who are...
Paradox
April 15th(limited); NR
A murder mystery with time travel? Sounds like my kind of mash-up. There's not much to find out about this film (it doesn't even have a rating yet) and it doesn't have to look of a really great film, but if it delivers on the promises it makes in the trailer and is decent enough, and can definitely see myself watching it someday.
The Huntsman: Winter's War
April 22nd; PG-13
Uuuuuhhh. Well, at least there's no Kristen Stewart! That means it has to be better than the other one, right? Honestly this prequel to Snow White and the Huntsman does look better. It focuses on more interesting characters and doesn't have the pretense of following a fairy tale. Of course since it's a prequel, we know more or less how it will end -- with the villain undefeated -- which will probably be unsatisfying. Anyway, even if it is better, that by no means guarantees it'll be good.
APRIL FOOL! I lied about lying about one of the movies. I know. I'm such an evil April Fools genius. Or I'm just lazy. One of those. Happy April Fools Day everyone! Don't write with strange pens and be sure to check under your seat cushions!
August releases for me sadly saw no movies worth the theater trip after the embarrassingly giant flop of Fantastic Four (or Fant4stic) that completely ruined my interest in seeing it, and The Man From U.N.C.L.E. being pretty tempting, (I'll certainly see it on DVD!) but not quite as tempting as a second viewing of Mission: Impossible Rogue Nation(review), which is the best movie of the year (so far) and %100 the best movie of the summer!
September has a nice little bit of varying interest, but for me, if the one movie I'm really excited for turns out right, it'll easily overshadow the others.
Have you seen Rogue Nation yet? Cause you need to. And which movies of September have your interest?
Before We Go
Sept. 4th (limited); PG-13
Two strangers meet and fall in love while staying up all night and wandering around New York City in this romantic dramady directed by and starring Chris Evans with Alice Eve. This movie seems like it would be a no-brainer for any girl having a hard time waiting for Captain America: Civil War to come around. I fall into that category, by the way. I hesitate to be too interested in this though, because of the few but unanimously negative reviews currently up on RT. Rom-coms very rarely get great scores, but I worry that this one might be worse than normal. All the same, I'll be keeping an eye on it, and will very likely be watching it as a rental someday. -- After writing that, I actually found this movie on Demand for rental and watched it. I'll review it later, but for now lets just say that when more reviews come in, a significant number should be significantly more positive.
Black Mass
Sept. 18th; R
This one's more a case of me really liking the cast than the idea of the movie itself. We have Johnny Depp going unrecognizable again with the prosthetics, creepy blue eyes and the terrible comb-back as the real-life super criminal Whitey Bulger. Bendect Cumberbatch plays his brother who was a senator, and Joel Edgerton is the FBI agent that gets in way too deep with him. There's also Corey Stoll, Kevin Bacon, Peter Sarsgaard, and Adam Scott. But if it weren't for the cast I would have no interest at all in this real-life crime story, even if it does turn out to be as well-made as it wants us to believe it will be.
Sicario
Sept. 18th (limited); R
This one is very similar to the one above. The cast list is smaller -- Emily Blunt, Josh Brolin and Benicio Del Toro -- but very interesting, and the plot seems only to be the carrier of the performances. Though this one looks heavier on the action, and isn't based on a true story. Emily Blunt is the main source of interest, and as awesome as she is, it may not be enough to put this one up on my list.
Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials
Sept. 18th; PG-13
This is my must-see of the month. What kind of reviews it gets doesn't really factor in here, because the first Maze Runner movie was great, but got middling reviews. So I don't trust critics to not give this movie bad score just because they feel that the movie is unnecessary -- being a dystopian movie that isn't a Hunger Games movie. I like these stories a lot, and as far as I can tell, this film looks to be even better than the first film, and even better than it's source book. Everyone's here -- Dylan O'Brien, Thomas Brodie-Sangster, Ki Hong Lee, Kaya Scodelario, and even some guys who had bit-parts in the last film. Then there's the addition of a few important girls, and Jacob Lofland (of Mud) as the new guy. It looks like there will be some changes from the book, mainly ones that increase action level without diverting from the main plot line -- which would be ideal, and therefore is what I'm expecting. It's an exciting month for the Maze Runner fans!
The Intern
Sept. 25th; PG-13
This one just oozes cuteness. An old, retired man gets a job as an intern at a young and hip company, and of course amusing situations and witty banter follows. Robert De Nero stars with Anne Hathaway, and a few familiar names supporting. This has the feel of a good movie that will easily charm and amuse, and hopefully it lives up to that impression!
(Mild spoilers throughout -- major spoilers have a warning.)
Into the Woods -- where magic is real, as are monsters and witches and giants, but wishes are the most dangerous of all. Oh, fairytales.
With Frozen, I discovered that I am not a fan of the new trend Disney has started (and convinced the rest of the world to join in on) of taking fairytales and twisting them so hard that the entire point of the tale falls out -- and with Into the Woods, that discovery is given reinforcement.
The Baker (James Corden) and his wife (Emily Blunt) cannot have children, and one day a witch, (Meryl Streep) tells them that it's because of her curse. She offers to reverse the curse for them though, telling them to find four things for her; a cape red as blood, a cow white as milk, a slipper pure as gold, and a lock of hair yellow as corn. They set off into the woods to find these things. At the same time there is a little girl who wears a red cape going to visit her grandmother, a boy taking his white cow to be sold, a poor girl named Cinderella (Anna Kendrick) who wants to go to the king's festival, and a girl with long yellow hair who is trapped in a tower with no doors. All these people make a wish -- and then they come true.
The Baker and his Wife -- the two main reasons I wanted to see this movie.
The acting and singing quality can be separated into three categories; people who were good at both, people good at acting, and people good at singing. Although I wouldn't go so far as to say anyone was bad at either.
Topping the "good at both" is Meryl Streep, who does everything she does exceptionally, and does no less here with a superb, lovely voice, and the highest quality acting. Next is James Corden, the hero of the story, and the one I was most interested to see, and he didn't disappoint -- he is goofy but sincere and noble, always at the heart of the story, and has a fine, distinctive voice. The two children of the show, Jack (Daniel Huttlestone) and Little Red Riding Hood (Lilla Crawford), not well-known actors, may have been cast more for their voices but they both gave fine performances and belong in this category too.
She probably could have put in half the effort she did, and still have come out on top.
Those better at the acting: With Emily Blunt it's only the greatness of her acting performance that dulls her singing by comparison, but really she's a pro at both. The biggest difference is with Johnny Depp as The Wolf. He is simultaneously creepy and funny, but once he starts to sing you know that he was cast because he's Johnny Depp, and not because he could do his song real justice. The howl at the end was good though! Then there's Chris Pine's Prince Charming. He actually impresses as a Prince who you might imagine might not have much character to work with, but what he lacked vocally was noticeable because of the duet with Prince #2 which was downright hilarious and brilliant, but the difference of skill between the two was noticeable.
This scene was just the best.
Good voices, not-so-very-convincing acting -- Prince #2, Repunzel's Prince (Billy Magnussen) was definitely cast for his vocal talent and good looks way before his acting talent. He is the best vocally out of the whole male cast, and fortunately, doesn't have much to do on the serious acting front, and when he does, it is opposite Repunzel, (Mackenzie Mauzy) who is a good match for him, falling into this category as well. Anna Kendrick only barely wavers towards the singing side -- she makes a
fine, but slightly modern feeling Cinderella, with a sweet and gentle
personality, and, well, a pitch-perfect kind of voice.
"On the Steps of the
Palace" may be my favorite song of the show, and I loved the whole way the scene was done.
The most basic quality of fairytales is the happily ever after, and while I wouldn't say Into the Woods has a bad ending at all, it's more better-than-before-and-bittersweet-for-a-while-after than straight up happily-forever, and some of the characters were worthy of the happy end they were denied. Denied, it seems, simply so we could be taught a lesson or two. (Or slapped in the face for enjoying classic Disney fairytales.) There were a good-sized handful of little morals to this story, (though they were mostly vague or hard to decipher) and interestingly, one was "morality is
what you decide it is," which effectively allows us to ignore all the
other lessons.
The biggest one was the classic saying, "be careful what you wish for," as all the characters who make a wish are granted it at a great cost. (A cost they are unaware of no less, which goes against fairytale rules itself.) This one doesn't exactly translate to the real world though, since here, wishes to marry a prince don't typically see reality's light. Certainly wishing can distract us from living our lives, and even when they do come true they're often not as fulfilling as we imagined, but not all dreams must be traded for something else we value.
Another quality of the fairytale genre is that the good characters see good in their lives, and the bad, bad, and the line between the two is easily distinguishable. Perhaps it was because of that one "lesson" but the moral and immoral character are all jumbled together and basically all get the same treatment.
About to enter the dangerous Wood of Spoilers!
(Major Spoilers! Next four paragraphs.)
In the case of Cinderella and her Prince, she shouldn't have married him after knowing him three days, (but we already know that, now, don't we Anna?) so you can question her judgment if you like, but what did she ever do to deserve a scoundrel for a husband? She deserved a real Prince Charming. (If you want to destroy the idea of the good Prince, the honorable girl who marries him has to go too -- make one of the ugly stepsisters get him.) Anyway, in the end her reason for leaving him was that she wanted something in between her life at home and her life with him, but that was only to justify the in between she gets -- and it would have been much simpler for her to leave him for his infidelity alone.
And then the case of the Baker, and by association, his Wife -- and yes, she didn't resist very much as the Prince seduced her, but if he didn't meet with an untimely, anticlimactic death-by-giant, then why did she? Her death punished her husband, who, out of all the characters was the most deserving. He deserved his wish and it was the most expensive, and he deserved a happy ending but there was none. Hopeful, yes, and I'm glad for that, but not happy.
Ultimately, the root of my disappointment here it that there was no good example of a truly loving, healthy, romantic relationship here -- the Baker and Wife had the potential, but it was cut off in its tracks before they could pass their test -- what "lesson" are we supposed to learn from this?
Also, if Rapunzel was the Baker's sister, then why did they never get to meet? That plot line was dropped the moment it was brought up. Just a random question.
(End Spoilers)
Now I've said my peace, on to the more technical things.
One unique thing about this film I enjoyed was how much it felt like a theatre show. It was a little unlikely and convenient how characters wandering in the woods could suddenly come upon someone who logically shouldn't have been near them, but I was able to suspend belief because of the stage-like quality. This also allowed my slight disappointment at not seeing Jack in the Giant kingdom or Cinderella at the ball to be excused. And I absolutely loved the way they did the "curtain call" like out of an old 80's film.
Here's a cool tidbit: the ugly stepsister on the left is Lucy Punch, who played the exact same part in Ella Enchanted.
Another neat thing was the return to original Grimm Brothers fairytale form -- occasional gruesomeness and darkness and all. That all only lasted through the first two acts though, and after that, they just had to make it their own and give it a nice twist -- wrench, more like -- and the third act as a result is jarringly different from the rest, and disturbing in a different way. One good thing that lasted through to the end though, was the neat, intricate way the multiple stories were woven together, as if the connections had always belonged that way. This was manifested in the song "Your Fault" which was my favorite part of act 3, as everyone gets their turn of being blamed for the group's situation, and we are reminded of the tiniest little things that connected them.
"Careful the things you say / Children will listen / Careful the things you do / Children will see / And learn" says the song, and it is one of few truths in this story, but unfortunately it failed to take its own advice. Most of its message was just a jumbled, confused mess, but that should be expected from a strictly secular story attempting a morality lesson. The end does see a glimmer of hope, and a generous sprinkling of love and nobility, and on the technical side this was a successful and grand production -- unique, funny and charming, but perhaps not as sincere as it would like us to believe.
My ticket stub read "Edge of Tom." Cruise. I'm sure there's a good joke in there somewhere...
Groundhog Day goes sci-fi for Tom Cruise's latest action adventure. He is Major William Cage of the US army, and the world is under invasion from evil-seeking extra-terrestrials. He has just convinced millions of people to fight for a worthy cause (if saving the Earth and everyone on it is a good cause) and now, he himself will go and fight with them on the front lines. Wait, what? Actually, the Major is not cut out for that kind of thing -- doesn't even have combat training -- that's why he has the job he does. He can't even stand the sight of blood. Orders are orders, but Cage does everything he can to get out of it. This leads to his waking up on a base in handcuffs. The next day he is at the front of the invasion, not even knowing how to disable the safety on his metal gun-suit. He dies within five minutes. Then he wakes up, on the base, in handcuffs. Again.
Then again. And again. And again. ... etc, etc. This scene happened a
lot. The movie's tagline is "Live. Die. Repeat." So you've got
the idea, don't you?
Besides the obvious basic comparisons I've already made to the Bill Murray classic, this movie is pretty much its own thing. There are plenty of easy-going, fun and enjoyable sci-fi alien-invasion action flicks out there, but Edge of Tomorrow is basically the epitome of the genre. In the same way Stardust is the epitome of a fantasy adventure. And maybe the genre of "easy-going, fun, sci-fi alien-invasion action flick" is pretty specific, but it's still a classic one. And here it's done better than ever.
And honestly, there's no way it could have succeeded in being up there with the best of the genre without Tom Cruise in the lead. All we have to do is see him and -- poof -- all our lingering disbelief that might hamper our enjoyment of a far-fetched plot disappears. He leads the films in his typical style, but the style of the character makes the film stand apart. You may have noticed it; Cage has no combat training? Can't stand the sight of blood? This is not your typical Cruise, and it's different and amusing to see.
Also, just out of random curiosity, have you ever wanted to see Tom Cruise die over and over again?
Also providing nothing but good, pleasant feelings and uniqueness, is the absolutely fantastic Emily Blunt. She is sharp and cool and collected, and scary, and balances the desperate everyman of Cage wonderfully. With the film taking place in one day (one day over and over, but still) it's hard to get in a satisfactory amount of character development between characters, and while it's done just about as well as it possibly could be, there's still a little left wanting. Still the two make for a great and memorable team.
The both of them are great making everything around them seem more awesome, so really, how could they not be good together?
There are only a few things I wish had been done differently. The repeating for one -- I'm about to draw comparisons with Groundhog Day again. Last time, I promise -- it does get a little tiresome, especially when Cage, about to go through the exact same conversation for the hundredth time tries to derail the subject, but the person stubbornly finds a way to say it anyway. Dialogue is rarely good enough to get away with so many repeats. Groundhog Day (there it is) managed it better, but only just; there isn't much wiggle room available.
Otherwise, there were a few points that didn't make sense, but I haven't a clue on what could've been done about them, as they tangled in with the plot in a completely irresolvable way. And then there were some other points that came across as being very convenient, but the suspension of disbelief that came from the often-shown face of Cruise helped sort those away pretty easily. I really only have one thing I wish for certain were changed -- and this is the closest thing to a spoiler here -- that there had been more anti-climax; and even that it hard to say since the ending was very sharp and modernly stylish.
This is not the end... If you remember the trailer, you might find that amusing -- actually, was anyone else reminded of the turrets from Portal by that robot-y-song? Also, have you noticed how all my photo captions are questions? I noticed that.
The action side was fun, but not particular in any way. Filmed more like a regular war movie with a bit too much shaky-cam than a stylized sci-fi spectacle, so I'm glad I opted for no 3D, but it was choreographed and plotted well, so it was never bothersome or boring. Just a lot of alien fun. And speaking of the aliens -- they were very, very cool.
The whole film was nothing but fast-paced explosive fun. Well, next to nothing at least. A close examination will reveal a twinge of heart and a smattering of thoughtfulness in the drama. But mostly, there's action, and there's fun. And considering the month it was released in, that seems completely appropriate. A summer blockbuster never lacks anything when it checks off all the criteria for fun summer-escapism-with-air-conditioning so confidently. So, let's just say in close that Tom's Edge is still sharp. What? It's the best I could do.
Edge of Tomorrow
Jun 6th; PG-13
If science fiction is the peanut butter of movie genres, then Tom Cruise is the jelly. And this movie is looking delicious. The trailer is fantastically intriguing, and practically perfect; giving away just enough to create interest, while keeping the element of mystery. And besides the mysteriousness of it all it also looks packed with epic sci-fi action, the right amount of humor, and drama and fun. And don't forget about Emily Blunt who is brilliant, and and totally should have been in a movie with Cruise by now. I was won over already, so the current 95% rating on Rotten Tomatoes is just the sweet, sweet icing on my anticipation cake. (On a side note, I think I might be hungry.)
The Fault In Our Stars
Jun 6th; PG-13
Okay. Let's just say this: I'm currently in the middle of reading the novel, and, if this movie version has half the quality the book, it'll be a pretty great film, no matter how teenage-romance-y it is. However, with the cast including the great Shailene Woodley and her Divergent co-star Ansel Elgort, and with how the trailer seems like it could be a trailer for the book it follows it so closely... I dunno, I'm having a hard time believing it could go so far down as to be half as good. There's probably no chance of it turning out better than the book though. Still, who knows; I could hate the ending of the book, and take this all back. You never know. Except for sometimes when you pretty much do.
Trust Me
Jun 6th; R
Clark Gregg writes, directs, and stars. I repeat: CLARK GREGG writes, directs, and stars. Oh, and the supporting cast? Just a few people like Sam Rockwell, Allison Janney, and Amanda Peet. Who all together remind me of The Way Way Back, and you all know how I felt about that movie. The plot is completely different of course, but very original, revolving around an agent for child actors. I won't get my hopes up since early review are split, plus there's the R-for-language rating to get around, but... oh, who am I kidding, my hopes are definitely up.
How to Train Your Dragon 2
Jun 13th: PG
Sometimes sequels are terrible ideas and ruin the original movie (if the original movie was good in the first place.) I was wary of How to Train Your Dragon originally because of the silly trailer, but of course I was proved wrong when I finally did see it. And then comes along the sequel to be suspicious of. Except I'm not. I was a little, up until the teaser trailer came out, and after the silliness they won me over by proving they were making an original movie instead of just capitalizing on the first's success. They proved it by making Hiccup age significantly. It's a small thing, but a very encouraging one. It means things will be different. And now of course it's getting lots of praise in early reviews, so I guess I'll be happy to see this one eventually.
The Signal
Jun 13th (limited); PG-13
I'm not exactly sure why this one is interesting -- it has a little to do with Laurence Fishburne, and Brenton Thwaits (who is apparently in the middle of a breakout year, what with being Prince Phillip in Maleficent, and the lead in The Giver, which I'll certainly be mentioning come August) but mostly it's just the trailer which is "weird" and "wow" and "huh?" all at the same time.
Transformers: Age of Extinction
Jun 27th; NR (yet)
Oh help me. Am I actually including a Transformers movie in this list? I guess so... Technically it's not a reboot, but the cast of characters has been completely redone, so there seems to be a chance of a hope of a possibility of it coming off feeling maybe a little fresher than it would otherwise. Mark Wahlburg for Shia LaBeouf is a fine trade in my book. Plus the dinosaurs, er, dinobots... is it possible that mean that they've gone so far down the path of ridiculousness that this movie might actually be so bad it's good? I'll be observing from the sidelines to see.
Snowpiercer
Jun 27th (limited); R
I'll keep this one short and simple: Chris Evans. Jamie Bell. John Hurt. Tilda Swinton. And most importantly. Watch. This. Trailer.
