After dodging the bullet that was Doctor Strange and the Multiverse of Madness, writer/director Scott Derrickson returned to doing his own thing his own way, and that's what The Black Phone is. A horror movie; with dark lighting and his signature uncomfortable tone. It plays out like a writing exercise for practicing setup and payoff, and I fully approve.
Adapted by Derrickson and Robert Cargill from a short story by Joe Hill.
The plot is set in the 70's, in an anywhere town with anybody families, where a pedophile serial killer is on the loose—Ethan Hawke, taking his usual charm and twisting it to creepy effect. 13-year-old Finney (Mason Thames), and his sister Gwen (Madeleine McGraw) see the missing posters, hear the news, and see empty seats appear in the school classrooms, but no one really knows what to do about it. Gwen has dreams where she can see the kidnapped kids, and she thinks they may be clues sent to her from Jesus, but their dad (Jeremy Davies, a great role for him, though not heavily featured) doesn't want her turning out like their mom who thought she was psychic but was really just crazy. He forbids her from talking about the dreams.
But then, Finney gets taken. In the basement of the Grabber's house is a phone with the cord cut. Sometimes it still rings, though. And when Finney answers it, the disembodied spirits of the Grabber's victims give him advice on how to survive; and how to escape. Each time he tries a plan and it fails, another kid calls with another plan. On the outside, Gwen dreams clues as to his whereabouts, and a detective, believing in her abilities, helps her search. You can see where this is going. It builds, and builds, and builds, and we wait for the inevitable showdown. It's simple; basic, even. And I suppose that might be a criticism in some eyes, but not to me.
I think the best, most thrilling horror movies are the simple ones. Simple can be hard to pull off.
It impresses me when a movie shows me what it's doing and yet I'm still anxiously hoping I haven't been tricked when those last twists and turns come down the pike. We're made to think we are in the know about everything, but we aren't really—and once we're wrong once, then comes the thrill of worry that we're wrong about everything. Derrickson isn't making high art here, but he has respect for his craft and knows what's winning about his genre. So he packs his work full of horror thrills. Extreme situations, menacing villains, dread, suspense; the dark, twisted implications left just unsaid, weak protagonists who find strength, and even casual musings on spiritual elements.
The only thing that's "missing" is gore, or reveling in violence, and that makes me like it even more. It may not be high art but it's tasteful. And thoughtful. You get the sense that it spurs from the uncomfortable fears and nightmares of its creators, rather than a lazy penchant for jump-scares and splashing blood. The supernatural brings a handful of frightening moments, but unlike most supernatural horror, the supernatural here is a force for good. Gwen's down-to-earth faith in Jesus is mixed in and at home with the more typical supernatural horror elements of ghosts and psychicism.
If you like to mull over on movies, this one isn't lacking there either, though it doesn't demand it
What underlying beliefs or fears inspired the plot can be interesting, but the main appeal lies, simply, in the plot itself. It's sharp structure, classic themes, efficient pacing, and ever-patient planning. Plus characters to root for, be sad for, see change, or just plain despise—all packed together in a premise and tone that unnerves, unsettles, and thrills. The performances are roundly good, and the production quality high, but the strength of writing is what brings the winning concept home. The Black Phone is a simple, focused effort of pure entertainment.
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.
Wow, March already. February went a little crazy with my expectations. First I saw Velvet Buzzsaw even though I was on the fence about it. I decided it didn't look too scary and went for it -- and now it's my current favorite movie of the year! It was devilishly funny and smart and I read a lot into the themes that I adored. And the horror was perfect for me: not too scary but very cool. (Read my review here!)
The next unexpected thing was that I actually went to the theater to see Alita: Battle Angel, and I'm so glad I did. I fell in love with it. The world was every bit as cool as I wanted and Alita herself was magical. I said I thought she looked inexpressive in the trailer, but in the movie, she was perfect. Wonderfully animated, acted, and written! (Review here!)
I didn't go see The Lego Movie 2 though, even though I thought that was a sure thing. And last night I streamed The Man Who Killed Hitler and Then the Bigfoot. It surprised me the least but that was probably because I was expecting good things. So I should get a review for it out soon.
March movies always seems to have a lot of promise to me. It's like the wild-card month, where the best and the worst movies of the year are mingled together and you have to sort out which is which. What looks good you y'all?
Captain Marvel
Mar 8th; PG-13
Here's an opening statement for you: I'm actually kinda excited for this movie. About as excited as I was for Spider-Man: Homecoming anyway, which is definitely more excited than I usually am for MCU installments. Usually, I dread them. Still, the push-back and push-back-on-push-back over this movie is ridiculous. I wish everyone would chill, because if this movie sucks, guaranteed it's going to be for the exact same reason that every recent Marvel movie has sucked. Anyway I'm still looking forward to it because I've always enjoyed Larson's acting, it's set in the 90's and supposedly has an appropriate soundtrack, is a space-y movie, and Ben Mendelsohn is the bad guy. What's not to like? Well, there's all the Marvel stuff that I'm sick and tired of... but I'm giving it a fair chance.
The Kid
Mar 8th; R
Chris Pratt plays a bad guy in this. Like, a seriously, really bad, bad guy. So I'm sold on that alone, I've always wanted to know if he has chops to play against type. Very interested. Then approach it from another angle: Ethan Hawke western movie. Sold all over again! It's directed by Vincent D'Onofrio, and all those guys were in The Magnificent Seven remake together. I can just see them sitting around on set and planning this movie -- though logic doubts that happened. Throw in Dane DeHaan and a more R-rated, gritty tone, and I've lost count of how many times I'm sold. At this point I'm basically sure that I'll be hitting the theaters for it if I can. It kinda snuck up on me, and suddenly I'm eager to see it! The music usage in this trailer is seriously on point.
I'm Not Here
Mar 8th(limited); NR
One of those actor movies. It's got J.K. Simmons and Sebastian Stan and Maika Monroe, and the plot looks, well, I can't even remember at this point and I only watched the trailer a few hours ago. It looks boring but well-acted. I dunno, I'd consider watching if it came to a steaming service near me.
Triple Frontier
Mar 13th; R
It's a Netflix movie, so, basically... I'll watch it. I don't even really need to know anything about it. I know it'll be there, it has an appealing cast of Oscar Isaac, Ben Affleck, Charlie Hunnam (who I like now for some magical reason???) Garrett Hedlund and Pedro Pascal, and that's all Netflix needs to attract me. The plot is one of those situations though where it's so clearly a bad idea yet the characters go for it anyway, so unless the movie itself makes it make more sense why they'd all agree to that plan -- it may ruin the whole thing even if the action is cool.
Starfish
Mar 13(limited); NR
Streaming May 28th, but I guess I'll put in here, so I can remember it once May rolls around. She's ostensibly the last person on earth and find a tape left for her by a friend, with clues on how to... solve something? Save the world? The movie looks pretty crazy but it's probably mostly a cerebral thing. Still, could be cool.
Five Feet Apart
Mar 15th; PG-13
I'd be kidding myself if I didn't include this one. I don't think I've ever seen a Sprouse brother act before. I never watched The Suite Life of Zack and Cody, but I've always known who they were because I was a part of a Narnia fan forum back in the day where people would regularly fan-cast them as the twins in The Horse and His Boy. That's a rabbit trail but the point is this is a cute dumb teen melodrama that's trying to bank off The Fault in Our Stars 5 years after the fact and I will probably watch it the absolute second its available for free because why the heck not? It also has the best friend girl from Edge of Seventeen, which I just watched the other day. So that's cool.
Captive State
Mar 15th(limited); PG-13
This looks like it could be absolutely awesome. I'm always down for a nice hardcore scifi movie and this alien takeover plot could definitely do the trick. It's like 1984 or something but with extraterrestrials. John Goodman is there, Vera Farminga, and it looks like the main character is Ashton Sanders, who I've not seen in anything yet, but he was the middle version of the protagonist in Moonlight so I expect he can do that acting thing. The only thing I'm not sure about is, it's proudly by the director of Rise of the Planet of the Apes, and... I did not like that movie. So if this follows it's footsteps too closely I can imagine it getting all the potential joy sucked out of it. Probably worth the risk though I'd say.
The Aftermath
Mar 15th(limited); R
Ugh, I dunno about this one, I'm on the fence about even including it in this post. Fox Searchlight seems to do a good job consistently picking up good movies, but even the appeal of hearing Alexander Skarsgård speak German doesn't seem worth sitting through a movie with this kind of frustrating "romance" plot, starring Keira Knightley.
The Mustang
Mar 15th(limited); R
This is different. Also, it's a horse movie. Last year, when a horse movie came out in March it wound up being my favorite movie of the whole year! That probably won't happen again, but this does have the same sort of simple, small and intimate tone. The reforming inmate and his horse. It looks good, it seriously does. Matthias Schoenaerts stars.
Us
Mar 22nd; R
I'm so scared of this movie, I can't even watch the trailer again. How in the world can I possibly watch the actual movie?!? Last time a trailer was too scary and I somehow got myself to watch the movie anyway I regretted it a bit. More than a bit. Ugh, it looks great, it looks terrible -- I think I'll leave it to the professionals for now. Maybe I'll ease into it and see Get Out first anyway. Same director. And if I like and can handle that, then we'll see.
Triple Threat
Mar 22nd; R
And it's streaming same day. Never not watch Iko Uwais movies -- ever since I finally buckled down and watched The Raid. I don't even need to see the trailer. Don't even need to know the plot. The action in this guy's movies are everything they need, and everything else is just a plus!
Dumbo
Mar 29th; PG
Disney's first live-action remake of the year, and the one getting the least flack. Certainly from me and here's why: It appears to be the least of a shot-for-shot remake of the three. It's got added characters and a seriously expanded plot. Human characters, and new human characters that aren't desperately trying to look like iconic animated characters. I also recently realized that I kinda enjoy Colin Farrell now (I think it was In Bruges that did me in) and he and his kids seem to be even more the leads than Dumbo himself. Ostensibly, they're changing it enough so it can be a worthwhile story in its own right. I'm surprised at how okay and hesitantly on board with this movie I am. They may reveal how they've ruined it soon enough, but as it stands I'm rather curious. Also Michael Keaton is the bad guy? Sounds good, solid plan.
Don't mind the title; this movie is more pure than it sounds, I promise.
For fifteen years Annie (Rose Byrne) has put up with her boyfriend Duncan's (Chris O'Dowd) obsession with American rock star Tucker Crowe, who disappeared after releasing his first hit album, Juliet, in the 90's. Juliet, Naked is a demo version of said album that finds its way into Duncan's hands. Partway to get revenge for an argument, and partway because she finds the demo album boring, and exploitative of the original's success, Annie posts a scathing review on Duncan's fan site. Later she gets an email saying that she hit the nail on the head... that's signed Tucker Crowe.
An almost You've Got Mail kind of premise but without all the waiting and the initial hating.
And yes, Tucker is played by Ethan Hawke. He and Annie bond over email, describing their disappointing lives; Annie keeping their exchanges secret from Duncan, and Tucker juggling a life full of strained relationships that involves three ex-wives and five children. But this is a rom-com so eventually, when Tucker's London-resident daughter Lizzie (Ayoola Smart) makes him a granddad, they take the opportunity to meet. Then other circumstances allow for an extended stay.
The movie takes care to make its protagonists likable despite the growth they need. For example, Annie never cheats on Duncan; and Tucker is determined to maintain a good relationship with his youngest son Jackson (Azhy Robertson). His last chance to not mess something up, he says. And Annie herself longs to have children, in a refreshingly un-progressive turn. Her dynamic with Jackson is almost as cute as her and Tucker. And maybe it's the British rom-com thing to do, but everything feels so down-to-earth and realistic, but not at all in a cynical, "real-world grit" kind of way. It's just relatable, normal, life things. Except becoming pen-pals with a famous person of course.
It's based on a novel, so maybe that's where it's unexpected depth without the weighty tone came from.
My favorite is when Annie and Tucker meet in real life. It's awkward, yet not painful to watch, cut short and not screaming with unnecessary sexual tension. They really do become friends first. And in the inevitable scene where Tucker discovers that the weird guy who runs that fan-site of speculative misinformation was her boyfriend, things don't escalate like some rom-coms might push them to. No misunderstandings, no jumping to wild and angry conclusions for the sake of drama; just a character-driven relationship between two unlikely people.
Even Duncan isn't left out. One of the movie's best moments is the instance of Duncan meeting Tucker and not recognizing him. Also O'Dowd is the movie's most consistently hilarious aspect, but isn't tossed out once his usefulness to the plot is fulfilled. He even gets a few moments of poignancy, and I really liked what he had to say about art not being for the artist but for the consumer. Rose Byrne is as charming as ever, hitting comedy and drama equally well. And Ethan Hawke, always excellent, doesn't phone in because he's in a rom-com, and (with help from the script) turns his character into something fascinating and nuanced that you wouldn't expect.
And he sings. They wrote songs for the Juliet album which we hear, and he sings Waterloo Sunset live. Like, I probably should have led with that, right? (there's even a soundtrack available!)
The rom-com genre may be dead, but Juliet, Naked makes itself relevant and worthy -- by being devoted to its characters beyond the romance that can be fabricated between them; by effortlessly avoiding dead pitfalls of the genre; by not relying on comic shortcuts and cliches; and by still appealing to rom-com sensibilities by being sweet and romantic and leaving you happy and satisfied in the end. For my money they could have sold the ending even more, but they can't resist adding a little extra as the credits roll that adds extra satisfaction and one more laugh to the more abrupt indie-style end.
Don't get distracted by the odd title. Juliet, Naked is more than meets the eye.
Last month I saw my favorite movie of the year (so far -- I'll keep you posted) and it was Lean on Pete. I knew that movie was going to be something special. I know it won't effect everyone so well and in the same way, but objectively it is a very well made, well acted, and beautifully shot film. Here's my review.
July was a pretty great month! I got to see Incredibles 2, Ant-Man and the Wasp, and Mission: Impossible - Fallout in the theater. Fallout was the best (spoiler-free review!) and I was pleasantly surprised at how much I enjoyed Incredibles 2! (Review!) Ant-Man wasn't the most irritating Marvel movie I've seen by a long shot, but it didn't have much good going for it either. Pretty forgettable already. (Review.)
August has a ton of movies, but nothing that I'm dead-set on going to the theater for. Seeing M:I again seems to be currently at the top of my priorities, but there definitely are some movies here that I will want to see. It's just a matter of when. What looks good to you this month??
So. Many. Trailers! Let's go:
Christopher Robin
Aug 3rd; PG
Every time I see something new-that's-not-really-new coming from Disney I get that cynical feeling going again. This is probably the best way to try and bank off my childhood -- and they even got Ewan McGregor in there for grown-up me -- but this trailer is the kind of cute and sweet that usually translates to just another passable Disney production with lots of nostalgia and not much of anything else.
The Darkest Minds
Aug 3rd; PG-13 The Hunger Games meets X-Men... or something. When I first saw this trailer I genuinely confused it with The Gifted. But this does look better than that was. I think the genre of YA revolution-dystopia is all-but dead, but appears to have taken a shift into the superhero realm with this. It still feels a little outdated, but I'll watch it anyway. Because... you gotta. And Rue is the lead -- I liked her.
The Meg
Aug 10th; PG-13
I know this is supposed to be completely overblown and ridiculous, and not supposed to be taken seriously, so I shouldn't have any issues with it, as it's just minding it's own business, being crazy silly fun summer fare, but I'm still annoyed -- because I made my brothers watch Jaws and they hated it, but they do want to see this. I want to see this too... okay, fine... but Jaws will always and forever rule, and this movie couldn't exist without it. I feel like Back to the Future Part II was right after all, because this is essentially Jaws 24, or whatever. But yes giant shark Jason Statham let's go.
BlacKkKlansman
Aug 10th; R
This will either be a brilliant movie, or only a movie that everyone says is brilliant. If the first, it will be a super stylish and fun undercover action movie that doesn't forget that it's marketing itself as a comedy. A solid and natural message would be of unity. If the second, it'll probably forget to be funny and come across instead as oddly angry and far too preachy, story suffering as a result. I hope it's more like the first because I'd love to watch that.
A Prayer Before Dawn
Aug 10th(limited); R
Some Peaky Blinders spoilers means I want to watch this movie. A24's latest. They seem to know what they're doing and they definitely know how to put together a trailer. It is based on a true story, but seems like a pretty remarkable story. Still there are pitfalls there. I'm not a big boxing movie fan and I'm not a big prison movie fan, but I'd definitely like to see this someday.
Summer of '84
Aug 10th; NR Rear Window with 80's kids? I'm there. I'm sure they're trying to bank off the success of Stranger Things and IT, but it is nice that they seem to have their own idea with the non-supernatural serial killer. Maybe this movie won't be a smash hit that everyone will love, but it sure does seem to be made with me in mind, and I that's all I care about. Looking forward to this one!
Crazy Rich Asians
Aug 15th; PG-13
I don't know, but this looks extremely enjoyable and I want to watch it. The big, non-indie rom-com of the month. Based on a book which is a great sign because rom-coms tend to have tired out plot lines but books need more going for them to be popular. I get a feeling this one will be a hit. Who doesn't like comedies about rich families? And the presentation of a culture I'm unfamiliar with is appealing to me, too.
Alpha
Aug 17th; PG-13
This doesn't look like a good movie, and the trailer appears to have given away the whole story, but I don't really care and I want to see it anyway. It's release date was pushed back and then brought back a little, and that doesn't bode well at all paired with the lackluster trailers featuring unconvincing CGI and a basic story. It's got a cute wolf though, and Kodi Smit-McPhee is has always been worth watching in the past. And this one's set WAY in the past!
Billionaire Boys Club
Aug 17th; R
Has it been long enough that everyone's forgotten about Kevin Spacey now? At any rate he definitely shouldn't prevent a film's release that so many other people worked hard on, even if it doesn't look as good as I hoped it would when I saw that Taron Egerton and Ansel Elgort were starring in a movie together. (The Unusual Names Boys Club!) The movie kind of looks like a mess. With a title like that it needs a trailer with a lot more style to secure my interest -- especially when those guy's best movies (Baby Driver and Kingsman) are so wonderfully high in the style category.
The Little Mermaid
Aug 17th; PG
High King Peter the Magnificent and the elf-princess Amberle star in a terrible kids romance fantasy about mermaids. The trailer gave the whole movie away. Ugh. Yet, for some reason, I know that I will watch it the moment it becomes free to watch. Help me.
Juliet, Naked
Aug 17th(limited); NR
Haha, aw. Sometimes you need a traditional little rom-com, and I seriously would watch this movie right now if I could, because I think I could use one. Rose Byrne is great, Ethan Hawke is great, Chris O'Dowd is great... the movie doesn't need to be particularly fresh or outstandingly exceptional or anything but if it delivers what it promises here, I bet it'll be great too.
Papillon
Aug 24th(limited); R
Like the original, I bet I'll keep seeing it around but never bother to actually watch it. Especially if the consensus is that the original's better because then I might feel the need to watch that one first. I do like Rami Malek though. And I always say I don't like Charlie Hunnam, but that's probably mostly leftover irritation over his version of Nicholas Nickleby. He doesn't bother me enough to make me avoid him. Maybe since this is a true story I should read about what happens and see if that will spark interest.
Destination Wedding
Aug 31st; R
And THIS is a rom-com for the cynical me who doesn't want to see a cute little family movie in which Ewan McGregor and Winnie the Pooh take long walks through the woods together. Honestly, I feel like Winona Ryder and Keanu Reeves should have been in a movie together by now. Have they? I can't think of one. Anyway, this makes me laugh, and I would like to see more.
The Little Stranger
Aug 31st; R
Aw, man. I'm going to have to watch this, aren't I? I don't know what it is about movies like this. House-related horror... maybe something supernatural is going on, maybe not... scary children... set in a period... attempts to be refined instead of gory... I love it and hate it at the same time. Or I like the idea maybe. I've yet to see it play out satisfactorily yet I'm always still intrigued. This one has a great cast which is what usually tips me over the edge: Domhnall Gleeson, Ruth Wilson, Will Poulter, and other familiar British faces.
Kin
Aug 31st; PG-13
Heck yes. The mere fact that they advertise as by the producers of Stranger Things means that they want to attract that fanbase. And yes, I know The Darkest Minds said that too, but this doesn't look like a teenage X-Men, but more like something original though still relatively family friendly. And look at Franco actually in a role that's suited to him! And look at the neon lighting usage! And how it's all about family. Yep, I'm on board! Dennis Quaid, Zoe Kravitz, Jack Reynor, and I don't think I've seen the main kid in anything before.
Blood Fest
Aug 31st; NR
Eh, on the fence here. With horror comedies the comedy needs to be really on point to get me, and from the trailer it doesn't look super promising. However, it does have Zachary Levi, Peter Parker's friend Ned, and a very fun premise going for it, so I may have to wait and see.
Wow. It's May already! I got to three movies on my list last month. A Quiet Place was the best of them, an excellent genre film. (Review here!) I watched Marrowbone off Amazon, and it was... complicated. (Review here.) And then of course, there was Avengers: Infinity War. Le sigh. I was painfully accurate in my predictions about this movie in all ways except one (and even that one is potentially arguable). I'm still a Marvel fan which is half of why I still go to these movies, but I feel like they've left me behind. The movies are barely even movies anymore, and not meant for the likes of me. (Review here.)
I also finally saw The Death Cure (Yay!) and it was a little more disappointing than I was hoping (Boo.) but it was still a worthwhile watch. (Review here.) And I hadn't posted my Ready Player One review yet last time, so if you missed that, check it here!
I think permanently missed Thoroughbreds in theaters, but I'm still wondering about Lean on Pete -- did I miss it, or is it never coming to a theater in my area? Whatever, I'll be sure to get both of those asap. I feel like I'm missing all the hidden gems of this year, and that feeling has been amplified by the joyless dominating event that is Infinity War.
This month doesn't actually have much going for it, but here's what we've got!:
The Cleanse
May 4th (limited); R
This one looks so strange. I little cheaply made maybe, but practical effects, so making good use of what they have. It's a horror comedy, and it looks both weirdly terrifying and strangely amusing, so I have to say I'm interested enough to keep an eye on how it does critically.
Terminal
May 11th (limited); R
They had me at Margo Robbie and Simon Pegg. And then I found out it's got a neon-noir style to it! I can't tell what the plot is from the trailer, but it sure does look good. Looks more than a little inappropriate for me too, but I have an app for that, so we'll see what happens.
The Seagull
May 11th (limited); PG-13
Based on a play I don't think I've ever heard of, but it's by Anton Chekhov, so I'd guess it's good. I like the period and the look, and the cast too, so I'll probably give it a go whenever it's becomes convenient from my living room. Anyone know the story?
Deadpool 2
May 18th; NR
This is an interesting situation. As you may know, I didn't like the first one at all, but I am a fan of the comic Deadpool, so I'm willing to give him as many chances as he wants to take. The first trailer gave me hope it might be an improvement, and the second trailer took all that hope away. Now this final trailer has restored hope again, and I'm not sure what to think. The trailer makes me laugh, and it appears to have a real plot this time. I won't speculate, but I am definitely interested to see and see how it goes. Domino is probably going to be awesome. And I spy with my little eye, someone who's name is Bill Skarsgård! No mpaa rating yet, but that one's not a hard guess. (On that note, language warning for this trailer.)
First Reformed
May 18th (limited); R
One of those trailers that looks all intriguing and artsy with a lot to say, but the only way to find out if you'll like it and what it has to say is to watch it. Ethan Hawke looks good. And Amanda Seyfried is in it, too.
Solo: A Star Wars Story
May 25th; PG-13
You know, I'd be 100% on board for this movie, hyped and actually excited -- if only his name wasn't Han Solo. Of course if he wasn't Han, then Emilia Clark would be the main character (that's the rule) and Donald Glover wouldn't get to be Lando, and then what would the point even be? This was such a bad idea. Poor Alden Ehrenreich. If he's a good Han he'll be underused what with all those supporting characters, and if he's bad -- he's bad. They just need to own it. Be like, "I'm Han Freakin' Solo. Deal with it." and let the haters hate. But the movie seems ashamed of him. Like they know this is a terrible idea. From the concept, to firing the directors, to the cast (except Glover and probably Paul Bettany) to the cliched "we're putting together a team" plot, all reeks of disaster. But visually, it looks great. Coloring, lighting, framing; it looks like it'll be visually pleasant. And as for the rest -- I'm not determined to hate it. I'm mostly just curious to see.
More on that in a second. When this movie was coming out, I not-so-secretly hoped it would be a surprise hit, and when it wasn't, I begrudgingly skipped it in theaters. Fast forward four months -- it only needed to be worth the $5 rental on Amazon, and as a visually spectacular space adventure it was every bit as great as it needed to be. It was fun. It was different. It was colorful, and inventive, and oh-so-very scifi. And it was dragged down by its distractingly bad script -- competing with those spectacular visuals, but in a tragic way.
Based on a French comic book series; adapted and directed by Luc Besson in an operatic The Fifth Element tone + Avatar-level visuals.
So while I was casually bemoaning the jarring disconnect between Valerian's script and Valerian's literally-everything-else, it occurred to me that the movie could have been a well-rounded and spectacular experience if only I didn't understand what the characters were saying -- like in Gåten Ragnarok, a Norwegian adventure flick I watched once sans subtitles. Done on a whim, it turned out to be a fascinating experiment, to see what I assume is a fairly basic adventure plot stripped of its clarity. The extra layer of ambiguity created the appearance of depth. I assume I missed a lot, but I understood it more than I expected I would, on a subtle, instinctual level.
If Valerian had been in French, and if I had watched it without the subtitles, the characters would have appeared to be deeper (at the cost of understanding what little development they do have) and the plot wouldn't have been handed out on a silver platter, but it still would have been a perfectly serviceable flick. The biggest thing I figure I wouldn't have understood is that Valerian is waiting the whole movie for Laureline to answer his marriage proposal. And that would still work since their romantic will-they-won't-they tension is obvious. Even the strangest of plot events are understandable without the exposition applied to them.
Supporting cast includes Ethan Hawke (as you can see) Clive Owen, and Rihanna. Rihanna is the only memorable one.
Like, the parallel dimension that is only visible through special goggles, or Valerian needing to find a shape-shifting alien, or Laureline sticking her head in a magical jellyfish to psychically divine Valerian's location. Even the Pearl Princess' spirit being inside Valerian comes across visually eventually. They are presented on screen in a very comprehensible way, and the dialogue explaining them only gives a name to the scifi craziness. The script is almost exclusively used for explaining things -- mostly way before an explanation is wanted. Though occasionally subtle wit plays off the dialogue, like when Laureline is advised to change out of her bikini for the mission, and shows up wearing a completely different bikini. Details like that would have been lost. They're charming moments, but in the vast minority overall.
There were whole scenes dedicated to redundant exposition, some featuring characters we never get to know at all. The ship's computer lady's sole function was to explain things to the audience. We see the Pearl Princess die the film's second prologue, and then the Pearl
Emperor retells the story again later. At that point, I'm overfed
with the info and getting bored. The movie needs to show it all happen because it's a hyper visual movie, and never realizes that it's telling everything too, taking up valuable dialogue time with nothingness, and devaluing the story. The veil of ambiguity that a language barrier would provide would at that point actually enhance the experience. Instead of being told what's going on and then watching it play out, it'd be a mystery; in invitation to be engaged in the story.
Pretty butterfly...
In many ways it would've helped with Valerian and Laureline's characters too. Both are underdeveloped, but also possess unique details about them that come through visually. That is to say, they would be so much more interesting if they stopped
opening their mouths and speaking such dry, lifeless and/or useless
words. I love how they use teamwork so casually, doing things in sync or handing off objects without having to look. I don't care for Cara Delevingne, but man, if she isn't pretty good in this. Weirdly, Laureline is a better character than Valerian, even though he
gets the movie's solid-if-simple theme as a character arc. I'm giving Dane DeHaan the benefit of doubt and assuming he underplayed on purpose. The borderline deadpan thing works for him though, and I think he only succeeds in losing interest to his co-star because Valerian spends a certain amount of time invisible, or shape-shifted, or just not doing anything. The camera is a big fan of Laureline's, and she gets more to do.
Both, also, are unconventional, and I love seeing unconventional characters
played by unexpected (and arguably miscast) actors leading films like this.
It doesn't play by the regular action blockbuster rules, and that is
always refreshing. It also totally embraces the cliches and tropes of action and scifi flicks of ye olden days. That timer stops at 1 second left with such aplomb you almost don't even notice the cliche. And the "love conquers all" theme is so cheesy, yet so unapologetic. And seriously, that opening to David Bowie's Space Oddity -- there are few quicker routes into the heart of a fan of science fiction than a sequence like that.
*Slowly realizes that I really really like this movie*
If you were to remake the movie shot-for-shot, and only change the
spoken words, it could have been worlds better. Planets better. Like
HUNDREDS of planets better. Probably not thousands. Let's not blow
things out of proportion here. I mean honestly, even with the drag-chute of a script, the movie
is not bad, and the bad script adds to the ambiance in its own way. The characters do get arcs, the
plot does makes sense (which is a pretty impressive feat considering how
wacky this world is), and everything that is done visually truly is spectacular. It's amazingly creative, and does the
adventure thing wonderfully well, reminding me of the old, classic style
of scifi adventures. It takes a gazillion pointless rabbit trails, but then the rabbit trails wind up being the best parts. The lack of convention is part of the charm.
And anyway, the scifi is so gleeful and
interesting, you almost don't need the characters to be any more compelling,
or the plot to be any more complex -- you don't want to distract from
what you have, and what I'm sure the main point of the movie is. (To be fun and spectacular!) But as I've learned, simple plots can be engaging if they
aren't over-explained, and character depth is easy to imply with strategic use of subtlety and some talented actors. Valerian is no
slouch, but its script certainly leaves lots to be desired. Normally
when a script lacks, the obvious solution is to add more to it, but in this case, I think
a little discarding might've been a handier option.
Sometimes less is more, and sometimes more is more. This movie has the "more is more" part down in spades.
So yeah, I wish it was a foreign language movie so I could watch it without subtitles -- kinda. At this point I've seen it twice and I'm already getting used to the script's dull moments of redundant explanation, and am appreciating what character we do get, and all the other unusual tidbits that you genuinely can't get anywhere else. So I guess in the end I got what I wanted, because all I really wanted was to be able to see past the uninspired dialogue that was clouding up this unusual and visual scifi treat. And I have. And the view from here is pretty spectacular. So! Any chance of a sequel?
In May the only movie I went to see was Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2. And while I enjoyed the mess out of it in the moment, it hasn't made much of a lasting impression. Check out my review of it here! I still want to see the other releases I mentioned eventually, and may go see Pirates after a while, but right now is my busy time of the year, and theater trips must take a backseat for a bit.
This month looks to have two must-sees to get to over summer, plus quite a few that will be staying on my radar as they pass through! What are you most looking forward to seeing in the month of June?
Wonder Woman
Jun 2nd; PG-13
Well -- no matter what happens with the film, we know they can make a super epic trailer out of it! It looks a bit like Thor and a bit like Captain America: The First Avenger, but it's got a female lead and comes from DC. Wonder Woman was one of the best parts of Batman v Superman, so from my perspective her film has the potential to be the best film from DC since The Dark Knight. It appears to have a coherent and interesting plot which is promising, and the flood of overwhelmingly positive responses so far is creating some huge waves. I'll certainly be seeing this one in theaters, though probably not for a little while due to extreme busyness. At this point it doesn't seem to be too much to hope that all the hype it's built up for itself will be lived up to!
Dean
Jun 2nd (limited); PG-13
Ah, the classic indie film, with the kinda goofy-looking, low key depressed and cynical lead, who wanders through a mildly aimless but pleasant jaunt of a plot, falls in love (maybe) and feels a little better by then end (maybe). Yeah. I may sound a bit cynical myself about this, but honestly this is the kind of flick I'd spend all day on lazy Saturdays watching if only I had access to more of them. So put me on the waiting list for this one too. Bonus: Kevin Kline!
The Mummy
Jun 9th; PG-13
The beginning of a new universe franchise of connected monster films including Jekyll and Hyde and Frankenstein and such -- they're calling it Dark Universe! But they're a bit behind. This flick seems to be more of a remake of the Brendan Frasier version then the 1932 original, but whatever. No matter it's to-be connections or general quality, one thing is almost certain: that it will be entertaining. That is Tom Cruise's specialty. I also enjoyed Sofia Boutella a whole lot in Star Trek Beyond so I'm looking forward to her playing a potentially over-the-top villain like this! As for quality, we'll have to wait and see.
The Book of Henry
Jun 16th(limited); PG-13
This movie has been making some waves coming up -- maybe mostly because it's directed by Colin Trevorrow who has a small but good track record and is set to direct Star Wars Episode 9. It also has both Jacob Tremblay and Jaeden Leiberher, two of the biggest child actors right now, and Naomi Watts who always puts everything into her performances. The plot is unexpected and unusually serious for a film with a child lead, and the trailer, as ominous as it is, also has some extra ominous undertones that are making me wonder if there's gonna be a happy ending here. If I see it it'll surely stress me out, but right now it looks like it would be worth it. The movie also promises Lee Pace, but unless I missed him, he doesn't appear in the trailer.
Maudie
Jun 16th(limited); PG-13
A performance-driven indie. This one's about the Canadian folk artist Maud Lewis, played by Sally Hawkins, and her husband, Ethan Hawke. Since it's based on a true story, I'd imagine they play up the drama a bit to make it more interesting, but it does look like a sweet tale, and I like the two actors, so if ever I get the chance I'll probably give it a watch.
Kill Switch
Jun 16th(limited); R
Okay... a scifi film starring Dan Stevens. Yes, take my money! But wait -- what's this? A catch? Turns out most of the movie is in POV so we won't get to see his face, doing all that acting stuff? Why? We already had to deal with this issue in Beauty and the Beast. Can someone make an awesome scifi movie with Dan Stevens and actually put Dan Stevens in it please? Besides him the movie doesn't look too great, but because it's a scifi, and because Stevens is in it (however little) I'll probably still watch it at my earliest convenience. I expect I'll be disappointed though.
Transformers: The Last Knight
Jun 21st; PG-13
Ugh. The over-stimulation is for real. I could barely even stand the trailer. It is nice to see Josh Duhamel back though, but that's about it. If you enjoy these movies chances are this one will be no different, but for me it's looking even bigger than the last one, which means it'll be even better for making fun of it whenever we can get it for free! Enjoy it how you can, right?
Baby Driver
Jun 28th: NR
Haha, I was about to say this might be my most anticipated movie of the month! No "might" about it friends -- if this isn't the highlight of my movie-June, there isn't gonna be a highlight (okay fine, Wonder Woman could easily be a highlight, but you get my point). Edgar Wright directs this one which is all I really need to know, but it will also feature a boatload of music (makes sense with Wright) and all long cast list of Ansel Elgort, Lily James, Kevin Spacey, Jon Bernthal, Jon Hamm, and Jamie Foxx. The trailer makes the film look super stylish and tightly edited (Wright, again). Seriously, there is no bigger draw than the director, and the premise out of which you know he can make one killer film! (With one killer track!)
The gang's all here. Left to right: 6, 5, 3, 1, 2, 4, and 7.
Hired by the recently widowed Haley Bennett to help the people of her small western town by getting rid of Peter Sarsgaard, who has taken their land and killed anyone who stood up to him, this group of mismatched men leading another unnecessary remake do something unexpected, and make the unnecessary worthwhile.
I've not seen the original 1960 Magnificent Seven, but from what I heard the plot plays out quite differently in this film. And that was probably the best decision made regarding the film. What has stayed the same this time is that classic cowboy movie tone that was so popular back in the 50's and 60's, but has since lost its light campiness and been built into something much more serious. Here there are those long, dramatic build-ups to quick-draw shootouts, complete with close-ups and finger twitching and sweat-dripping. There are classically-shot introductions for characters; focusing on their backs or their boots until the cool reveal of their face. Everything milked for all it's worth. And even the plot plays out an old western -- it's a serious situation, but it's meant to be fun for the audience, and that it certainly is.
Cool dudes and cool gun play. What's not to like?
Instead of re-shooting the same plot in a modern style, what the filmmakers behind this film did was revert back to the classic western method while using modern techniques. The result is a big film, realistic and blockbustery on the action-side, but old-fashioned and nostalgic in its storytelling. The mashup is not without flaws, but it's also something you haven't really seen before, and that's what makes missteps forgivable.
The balance the characters find between classic and contemporary leans mostly to the classic side. They're very simply but uniquely characterized and arcs are tried and true if somewhat predictable; but the performances do cater well to a modern audience. Denzel Washington is an excellent lead, and gets the least complaints. The rest seems to suffer slightly from lack of development, which is understandable considering the cast size. Chris Pratt is always good, and it was fun to see him playing a cowboy. He was cocky and funny with just the right amount of heroism. Ethan Hawke was a surprise favorite. I found his arc very compelling at first, and was a little disappointing that it wasn't more complex in conclusion.
I'm glad the characters were interesting, but at the same time it only made me wish they were even more interesting.
Vincent D'Onofrio was brilliant and a riot. An epic character, that could lead is own solo movie, but his introduction was so good it was hard to top later. Manuel Garcia-Rulfo I liked immediately, but he faded a little too much into the background later. His character was one of the more grounded ones, but didn't get a distinct arc; as if he were one of the larger-than-life characterized characters who didn't need it as much. Byung-hun Lee had the larger-than-life thing down pat, and so did Martin Sensmeier. Neither had much to say, but had great physical presence. They were also the most engaging to watch fight.
Haley Bennett as a sort of honorary eighth member gets the ball rolling, but then doesn't back off after that, and she's just as good and developed as the rest, if slightly more typical. Peter Sarsgaard saved the villain from being forgettable by playing him well, and not phoning in. For what it is, all the characters were good. They were well-defined and didn't bite off more than they could chew. But this isn't a character movie. It's an action movie with a nice cast of characters on the side.
I always want there to be more out of the characters, but sometimes (like here) that could just make things worse.
The action itself veers heavily toward modern-day blockbuster stuff, but happily avoids most of the pitfalls that make many actioners these days boring. Even though the entire third act is a battle, there are different things happening in different places featuring different characters that keeps us engaged. And the battle was planned out in detail, so it's easy to tell what's going on. The quality of the action is sometimes lacking -- by today's standards anyway -- with only a handful of memorable stunts. Mostly it's just a lot of well-aimed gun-shooting. But that's when the side of character becomes useful to fill in gaps.
Undeniably, this movie is silly. It embraces both the cheesiness inherent in the western oldies and the campiness ingrained into modern fun action thrills. It takes it all together, and the silliness becomes a part of the charm. Yes, it is a flaw that a charge of galloping horses would take fifteen seconds to travel twenty yards, but I found it equally as true that the movie needed to milk moments like that for the extra drama in order to live up to its potential. So those moments happened, and were done wholeheartedly, for fun and for entertainment.
The Seven Who Worked Together to Make a Remake Worthwhile.
The Magnificent Seven never really had potential to live totally up to its name. Magnificent is just too high a standard -- and who needs magnificence anyway, when you can fill your black five-gallon hat up to the brim with classic charm and humor, and cool heroes on a mission to save the day instead? Not magnificent; but everything it needs to be? Absolutely.
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.
August was a no-go. It was such a no-go that I didn't even watch The Little Prince off Netflix. Netflix. Could have watched at any time and all I did was watch Stranger Things three more times. Not that that was really a bad decision or anything. That show is the greatest.
September has a handful of movies with interesting trailers, but no must-sees currently. I won't be surprised if I don't go to the theater again this month, and that makes me sad.
Does anything look good to you this month? And have you seen Stranger Things yet? You absolutely must!
The 9th Life of Louis Drax
Sep 2nd (limited); R
This one is pretty interesting just because the trailer was very unexpected. I did not expect a creepy sci-fi element. It's also a mystery and a drama, but the supernatural side is really the most appealing aspect to me. Since it's coming out tomorrow there are reviews already, and it's not looking particularly great.
Sully
Sep 9th; PG-13
Not that this isn't an incredibly neat story or anything, but I wonder if it really warrants a full-length film. It seems like they're adding a lot of drama (via "the untold story") just to push up the run time -- to a whopping 96 minutes. Of course Clint Eastwood is a great director, and Tom Hanks is a great actor, so maybe they can make it all worthwhile for more than just a shot at some Oscar attention. The trailer is definitely of a first-rate brand!
London Road
Sep 9th (limited); NR
This movie is so strange I just had to include it. Watch the trailer to see for yourself because it's hard to describe, but it's a musical -- an actual stage musical being adapted for the screen -- about the small, oddball town of Ipswich when a high-profile murder case made them the center of attention in 2006. And it's a musical. And the music is so strange. Seriously just watch this trailer. Olivia Colman and Tom Hardy lead the cast.
Snowden
Sep 16th (limited); R
I'm not really privy to the controversy about this dude, but putting the true story part aside, this trailer makes this film look like an excellent, tight and suspenseful thriller (even though the main genre it's labeled as is "drama"). That, plus Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and I'm sold. If it proves to be what it promises I'll be looking for it on VidAngel.
The Magnificent Seven
Sep 23rd; PG-13
This is to me the most interesting release of the month. Which is a little sad considering it's a remake and I'm sick to the teeth of terrible remakes. However, I haven't actually seen the original Magnificent Seven, so that helps a lot, and maybe this will be one of the few that actually is a worthy remake. I love the cast, and the trailer -- even with the modern music that is odd but fitting. I definitely want this one to turn out good, but I won't be getting my hopes up anytime soon.
The Dressmaker
Sep 23rd (limited); NR
On the surface this one seems odd -- a little too odd. But I really enjoyed the trailer. The fashion, the mystery, Kate Winslet... it all has an air of originality to it, and that makes me want to see it. Isn't Liam Hemsworth quite a little bit too young to play this part though. Maybe he's playing older and Kate is playing younger. Like I said, odd.
Deepwater Horizon
Sep 30th; PG-13
Ah, true stories of disaster. You know this is gonna be the biggest drama an action film ever was. And still I list it here. Maybe because it's one of the bigger releases of the month, maybe because it looks like there may be some neat action after all, maybe because Dylan O'Brien is in the cast... who knows.
Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children
Sep 30th (limited); PG-13
I read the book, but strangely it didn't make me all that interested in seeing this movie. Asa Butterfield as Jacob will probably be perfect, but otherwise the adapting doesn't have that since of love and devotion you look for in franchises like this. The lead girl has someone else's powers, and the other character is cut out completely? What's up with that? Anyway, I will probably watch this, it's just a matter of when -- as determined by how good or bad it is considered to be by fans and critics.
