No big surprise that I didn't get out to see any of the new January releases. Instead I did my catching up plan! I saw 1917 which did me proud and rocketed up to my #1 spot on my best of 2019 list. It was everything I wanted and so much more, and I'm still not over it. Stunning on a technical level but the focus remains where it should; on story, character, and beautifully empathetic emotion. I can't recommend it enough, but I try in my review here.
Then I went with my sister to Little Women and we were both greatly impressed by it. It has charm coming out its ears and tells the wonderful story in a passionate and meaningful way, with endless fantastic performances. Read my review here!
Then I went to see 1917 again.
And if I get my way I'll go see it at least one more time before it's out of theaters, and the release line-up for February leaves plenty of open space for me to do that. There may be a good number here that will be worth watching at some point, and maybe I'll get some surprises out of them, but there's only one that I'm planning a theater trip for. The rest seem more stream-worthy, IMO. What looks good you y'all this month??
Birds Of Prey (And The Fantabulous Emancipation Of One Harley Quinn)
In theaters February 7th; R
I'll watch it when it's free on Amazon Prime and I can plug it into VidAngel to get rid of the sexual content. And I won't expect to enjoy it very much, but it really could go any number of ways -- worse than Suicide Squad? Not writing that off. One of DC's better flicks? Unlikely, but I'm open to the possibility. That's what I like about DC over Marvel. You never know what to expect. Will mostly be watching for Ewan McGregor. I love Margot Robbie, but her Harley Quinn is already feeling abrasive.
The Lodge
Limited release February 7th; R
I may or may not have talked about this one already but I think might actually be coming for real this time. I won't bother to see it in theaters and may not ever bother to see it at home either -- depends on if I ever am brave enough and if anyone will watch it with me. So it has to be scary enough to get my brother on board but no so scary that I'll want to stay away. It's a tightrope. I do like Riley Keough though, and Jaeden Martell and Richard Armitage. Could be... cool. Ha.
Sonic the Hedgehog
In theaters February 14th; PG
Ugh, The curiosity is going to be too much for me, isn't it? I know I won't be able to resist... the moment I can stream it from my couch and feel free to laugh at and talk over it. I'm only wondering now -- is it possible that it'll be GOOD? In the vein of Monster Trucks, perhaps? Too much to hope for, I'm sure...?
Emma
Limited release February 21st; NR
Emma is one of few Jane Austen adaptations that, in my opinion, don't yet have a definitive adaptation. I love the Gwyneth Paltrow version, but it doesn't have the kind of perfection that makes further versions unnecessary. So I'm eager to see this new version with Anya Taylor-Joy, even if it also isn't definitive or perfect. Emma can be adapted once every two years for the rest of my life and I'd be happy to watch them all! This one also stars Bill Nighy as Mr. Woodhouse, Mia Goth as Harriet, Johnny Flynn as Mr. Knightly, and Callum Turner as Frank Churchill. High hopes and theater plans for this one!
Call of the Wild
In theaters February 21st: PG
I don't even want to talk about this, why am I including it? THE CGI DOG PLEASE MAKE IT STOP. How can Harrison Ford, Dan Stevens, Karen Gillan, AND Bradley Whitford be in a movie so pathetic that it can't even be bothered to work with a live action dog?? What's wrong with real dogs??? I like real dogs, not CGI ones! Who thought I would want to see this crap? Does ANYONE want to see this? If you're genuinely exited to watch a CGI dog in this movie please leave a comment. I promise I won't laugh... much.
The Invisible Man
In theaters February 28th: R
I dunno. Good premise, Leigh Whannell directing, looks kinda upbeat and fun. But also, not a fan of Elizabeth Moss, and watching the trailer is like watching the while movie which isn't a great sign. Maybe a decent Halloween watch come October?
Wendy
Limited release February 28th; PG-13
This could be interesting and seems worth keeping an eye on. Fox Searchlight generally has good taste. This is a kind of loose adaptation of Peter Pan that seems to be more realistic and thoughtful than the fairytale. Starring Wendy, with no Peter in sight, but that can be got over if the story is any good. One of those kids looks like baby Tom Holland. Just a random observation I had. Yeah, it doesn't seem especially promising, but I'd consider giving it a fair chance.
Showing posts with label Ewan McGregor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ewan McGregor. Show all posts
Saturday, February 1, 2020
Friday, November 1, 2019
Upcoming Movie Roundup - November
October was pretty slow, new-movie-wise. I spent most of my time catching up on movies like Dumbo and Yesterday, and then watching seasonal horror flicks as my nerves allowed. But the month started out fantastically with Joker, a beautifully complex movie that feels culturally important and closed off the season with a resounding bang. (Read my review here!)
Now Oscar season will gear up over November so there's a lot of movies that I think look objectively good but am simply not interested in. That's how it goes for me, and it's kinda sad. But there are a few that I definitely want to see so I'll probably stay busy. I just hope there's some truly great movies buried somewhere in there! What looks good to you this month?
Motherless Brooklyn
In theaters November 1st; R
Wow, how have I not heard of this one yet? Edward Norton stars. Edward Norton directs. Edward Norton writes. And it's a noir crime mystery movie set in the 50's and the PI has Tourettes. That sounds like the most awesome thing I've ever heard of! Reviews are sorta mixed so far, so maybe it's not amazing, but I don't think it'll have to be to be a winning movie in my book. The style looks epic, I like long movies, I like movies with singular visions, and I don't mind if noir mystery plots are boring or don't make sense as long as the characters are fascinating and unique. So. I'm sold.
Terminator: Dark Fate
In theaters November 1st; R
Here we go again. Just for fun, here's my ranking of Terminator movies so far: 1, 2, Salvation, 3, Genisys. This one I expect will go on the end, but who knows, maybe the returning cast will help it beat out that awful, un-spellable Genisys. Even though they're super old now. Ugh this movie just looks so lifeless. I just hope it's good to make fun of once it's streaming.
The Irishman
In theaters November 1st, on Netflix Nov 27th; R
Unless something changes I'll be going the Netflix route. I don't have a ton of interest in this but since it'll be on Netflix I'm sure I'll give it a chance. And I expect it to be good, even. Even with the de-aging which I still don't think is a good idea. It looks entertaining and stylish and has a cast that's worth seeing. I'm just neither excited nor uninterested.
Marriage Story
Limited theater release November 6th, on Netflix December 6th; R
The last thing. In the world. That I want to do. Is watch Scarlett Johansson and Adam Driver get a divorce and go through a custody battle. But it's going to be on Netflix in December, so I won't be able to resist, just because it is Scarlett Johansson and Adam Driver. Ugh. I would love it if the movie ended with them changing their minds and sticking it out for the sake of their kid and then realizing that was the best route after all.... but propaganda doesn't work that way.
Doctor Sleep
In theaters November 8th; R
A wonderful excuse to get my dad and other brother to watch The Shining with me! Also I'm always down for any movie with Ewan McGregor in the lead. It doesn't look exactly great -- certainly not the the same way The Shining was great -- but it does look quite fun in an action-y trippy, super dramatic way, and that's how I prefer my horror films.
Midway
In theaters November 8th; PG-13
I wasn't interested in this until I saw Patrick Wilson was in it. Now... I'm still pretty not interested. I mean sure it has a nice cast. Ed Skrein, Keean Johnson (who were in Alita together) Luke Evans, Woody Harrelson, Aaron Eckhart, Luke Kleintank of The Man in the High Castle, Dennis Quaid... Darren Criss... Nick Jonas... haha. It just looks so annoyingly shiny. You know, that "everything looks too clean and bland to be real" look? This movie has it worse than anything I've seen before. No style. Nothing that seems tangible. Even the people look airbrushed. I hate it. Maybe the battle's done really well, but I'll probably still hate it.
Last Christmas
In theaters November 8th;PG-13
I don't really care for Emilia Clarke too much, but she's definitely at her very best in rom-coms, and Henry Golding was great in Crazy Rich Asians but seemed to miss out of the full romance potential he has in that, so hopefully he makes up for it here. It's probably too much to hope that it'll be streaming by Christmas but I seriously doubt I'll go to the theaters for it. I guess I'll see it when I see it, Christmastime or no. I won't expect much but it looks enjoyable.
Honey Boy
Limited release November 9th; R
I'm actually, really, strangely eager to see this. I'm not super interested in Shia LaBeouf usually, so I think the main reason this has sparked my interest is the apparently strange mix of fiction and reality that it is. It doesn't claim to be based on a true story, but it is about Shia's life. So it's from his perspective but not in a way that claims fact. It is (hopefully) more about the way he saw the world and his dad and himself -- and I find that fascinating. I love movies that are from an individual perspective. Beyond that, I love how much of Shia I can see in both Lucas Hedges and Noah Jupe who play the "Shia" character at different ages. That kind of acting is reason enough to see it!
Danger Close
Limited release and streaming November 8th; R
A bunch of Australians and New Zealanders fight in the Vietnam war? Sounds pretty great, even if it is based on a true story. The trailer makes it look solid too. Like it has style and will be epic and dramatic. Starring Travis Fimmel, with Bullseye from The Punisher and Henry Bowers from IT.
Love is Blind
Limited release and streaming November 8th; NR
Haha, well, I feel like the plot is going to completely fall apart... but it's a romance movie starring Aiden Turner, so what can I say? I'll watch it. Never seen the girl, Shannon Tarbet before, but it also has Benjamin Walker, Chloe Sevigny, and Matthew Broderick.
Ford v Ferrari
In theaters November 15th; PG-13
This is guaranteed going to be one of those movies based on a true story where the true story isn't interesting enough to be cinematic by itself so a ton of embellishments and additions will go in, plus as much style and quality as the director can muster -- and it's still just going to boil down to an acting vehicle (Pun. Intended.) for Christian Bale and Matt Damon, so that they can compete over who gets nominated for best actor this year at the Oscars. James Mangold directing is the one thing about it that's remotely interesting to me.
The Lodge
Limited release November 15th; R
Ooo! A cult movie? With Riley Keough, Jaeden Martell and Richard Armitage? Sounds great as long as it's not too scary but who am I kidding it's probably too scary. Maybe I'll watch it next year for Halloween, I'm all horror-movied out at the moment.
Frozen II
In theaters November 22nd; PG
I'm just here to say, "No thanks."
A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood
In theaters November 22nd; NR
I guess Oscar season is about to be full-swing. This movie looks sweet and genuinely good, but I really wouldn't take much notice without the buzz, as I never watched Mr. Rogers. I bet the movie will be good and I bet that Tom Hanks will get the nom, especially since it's for supporting instead of lead. And I very well might see it someday too, and probably enjoy it if I do. But the chances of it being a special personally meaningful film to me and next to zero. That's just how it goes, sorry.
Knives Out
In theaters November 27th; PG-13
I like a good, smart whodunit, and I like all of Rian Johnson's original films, so I definitely want to give this one a chance. But I hear tell of how it's more interested in politics than storytelling and that makes me wary. I was afraid after Star Wars that Johnson would embrace what that movie made him to the general public -- a kind of movie-making troll whose movies you like if you're from one side just on principle, and aren't allowed to if you're from the other. I'd like to enjoy this. But I'm going to judge it as a film and a story. Not on what it says. Cast: Daniel Craig, Chris Evans, Jamie Lee Curtis, Michael Shannon, Toni Collette, Ana De Armas, LaKeith Stanfield, Jaeden Martell and Christopher Plummer.
Now Oscar season will gear up over November so there's a lot of movies that I think look objectively good but am simply not interested in. That's how it goes for me, and it's kinda sad. But there are a few that I definitely want to see so I'll probably stay busy. I just hope there's some truly great movies buried somewhere in there! What looks good to you this month?
Motherless Brooklyn
In theaters November 1st; R
Wow, how have I not heard of this one yet? Edward Norton stars. Edward Norton directs. Edward Norton writes. And it's a noir crime mystery movie set in the 50's and the PI has Tourettes. That sounds like the most awesome thing I've ever heard of! Reviews are sorta mixed so far, so maybe it's not amazing, but I don't think it'll have to be to be a winning movie in my book. The style looks epic, I like long movies, I like movies with singular visions, and I don't mind if noir mystery plots are boring or don't make sense as long as the characters are fascinating and unique. So. I'm sold.
Terminator: Dark Fate
In theaters November 1st; R
Here we go again. Just for fun, here's my ranking of Terminator movies so far: 1, 2, Salvation, 3, Genisys. This one I expect will go on the end, but who knows, maybe the returning cast will help it beat out that awful, un-spellable Genisys. Even though they're super old now. Ugh this movie just looks so lifeless. I just hope it's good to make fun of once it's streaming.
The Irishman
In theaters November 1st, on Netflix Nov 27th; R
Unless something changes I'll be going the Netflix route. I don't have a ton of interest in this but since it'll be on Netflix I'm sure I'll give it a chance. And I expect it to be good, even. Even with the de-aging which I still don't think is a good idea. It looks entertaining and stylish and has a cast that's worth seeing. I'm just neither excited nor uninterested.
Marriage Story
Limited theater release November 6th, on Netflix December 6th; R
The last thing. In the world. That I want to do. Is watch Scarlett Johansson and Adam Driver get a divorce and go through a custody battle. But it's going to be on Netflix in December, so I won't be able to resist, just because it is Scarlett Johansson and Adam Driver. Ugh. I would love it if the movie ended with them changing their minds and sticking it out for the sake of their kid and then realizing that was the best route after all.... but propaganda doesn't work that way.
Doctor Sleep
In theaters November 8th; R
A wonderful excuse to get my dad and other brother to watch The Shining with me! Also I'm always down for any movie with Ewan McGregor in the lead. It doesn't look exactly great -- certainly not the the same way The Shining was great -- but it does look quite fun in an action-y trippy, super dramatic way, and that's how I prefer my horror films.
Midway
In theaters November 8th; PG-13
I wasn't interested in this until I saw Patrick Wilson was in it. Now... I'm still pretty not interested. I mean sure it has a nice cast. Ed Skrein, Keean Johnson (who were in Alita together) Luke Evans, Woody Harrelson, Aaron Eckhart, Luke Kleintank of The Man in the High Castle, Dennis Quaid... Darren Criss... Nick Jonas... haha. It just looks so annoyingly shiny. You know, that "everything looks too clean and bland to be real" look? This movie has it worse than anything I've seen before. No style. Nothing that seems tangible. Even the people look airbrushed. I hate it. Maybe the battle's done really well, but I'll probably still hate it.
Last Christmas
In theaters November 8th;PG-13
I don't really care for Emilia Clarke too much, but she's definitely at her very best in rom-coms, and Henry Golding was great in Crazy Rich Asians but seemed to miss out of the full romance potential he has in that, so hopefully he makes up for it here. It's probably too much to hope that it'll be streaming by Christmas but I seriously doubt I'll go to the theaters for it. I guess I'll see it when I see it, Christmastime or no. I won't expect much but it looks enjoyable.
Honey Boy
Limited release November 9th; R
I'm actually, really, strangely eager to see this. I'm not super interested in Shia LaBeouf usually, so I think the main reason this has sparked my interest is the apparently strange mix of fiction and reality that it is. It doesn't claim to be based on a true story, but it is about Shia's life. So it's from his perspective but not in a way that claims fact. It is (hopefully) more about the way he saw the world and his dad and himself -- and I find that fascinating. I love movies that are from an individual perspective. Beyond that, I love how much of Shia I can see in both Lucas Hedges and Noah Jupe who play the "Shia" character at different ages. That kind of acting is reason enough to see it!
Danger Close
Limited release and streaming November 8th; R
A bunch of Australians and New Zealanders fight in the Vietnam war? Sounds pretty great, even if it is based on a true story. The trailer makes it look solid too. Like it has style and will be epic and dramatic. Starring Travis Fimmel, with Bullseye from The Punisher and Henry Bowers from IT.
Love is Blind
Limited release and streaming November 8th; NR
Haha, well, I feel like the plot is going to completely fall apart... but it's a romance movie starring Aiden Turner, so what can I say? I'll watch it. Never seen the girl, Shannon Tarbet before, but it also has Benjamin Walker, Chloe Sevigny, and Matthew Broderick.
Ford v Ferrari
In theaters November 15th; PG-13
This is guaranteed going to be one of those movies based on a true story where the true story isn't interesting enough to be cinematic by itself so a ton of embellishments and additions will go in, plus as much style and quality as the director can muster -- and it's still just going to boil down to an acting vehicle (Pun. Intended.) for Christian Bale and Matt Damon, so that they can compete over who gets nominated for best actor this year at the Oscars. James Mangold directing is the one thing about it that's remotely interesting to me.
The Lodge
Limited release November 15th; R
Ooo! A cult movie? With Riley Keough, Jaeden Martell and Richard Armitage? Sounds great as long as it's not too scary but who am I kidding it's probably too scary. Maybe I'll watch it next year for Halloween, I'm all horror-movied out at the moment.
Frozen II
In theaters November 22nd; PG
I'm just here to say, "No thanks."
A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood
In theaters November 22nd; NR
I guess Oscar season is about to be full-swing. This movie looks sweet and genuinely good, but I really wouldn't take much notice without the buzz, as I never watched Mr. Rogers. I bet the movie will be good and I bet that Tom Hanks will get the nom, especially since it's for supporting instead of lead. And I very well might see it someday too, and probably enjoy it if I do. But the chances of it being a special personally meaningful film to me and next to zero. That's just how it goes, sorry.
Knives Out
In theaters November 27th; PG-13
I like a good, smart whodunit, and I like all of Rian Johnson's original films, so I definitely want to give this one a chance. But I hear tell of how it's more interested in politics than storytelling and that makes me wary. I was afraid after Star Wars that Johnson would embrace what that movie made him to the general public -- a kind of movie-making troll whose movies you like if you're from one side just on principle, and aren't allowed to if you're from the other. I'd like to enjoy this. But I'm going to judge it as a film and a story. Not on what it says. Cast: Daniel Craig, Chris Evans, Jamie Lee Curtis, Michael Shannon, Toni Collette, Ana De Armas, LaKeith Stanfield, Jaeden Martell and Christopher Plummer.
Wednesday, August 1, 2018
Upcoming Movie Roundup - August
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.
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.
Saturday, March 18, 2017
Beauty and the Beast
Everyone's here, everything's the same, and the nostalgia is strong. There's Belle with her simple blue dress and her swishy yellow one, Gaston with his poof-in-the-front hair, the Beast's unnaturally blue eyes, Lumiere and Cogsworth and their constant bantering. All the songs are sung, all the magic displayed, and that same happy ending is more life-like than it has ever been. But is this remake truly worthy?
With the original being only 25 years old, it's already a relatively up-to-date kind of fairytale. Are the advancements in GCI technology since 1991 enough to refresh the story? Does making it live-action and filling the beloved roles with appealing actors create new worth? Perhaps not -- but that didn't stop the production, so I figured it wouldn't have to stop our enjoyment either. I plunged in opening night with no inhibitions, but also not much confidence in the quality.
The worst thing was the visual effects. The idea was that today we are perfectly capable of making humanoid beasts and talking inanimate objects seem real so they can play believably next to live actors. Now, I have seen Guardians of the Galaxy, and Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, so I know this to be true; the technology has advanced to the point where its use is practical and able to hold up over time. So, why does the animation of the Beast look so bad? They used mo-cap technology, it's Disney so they should have plenty of money -- yet looking at his face, my mind could never accept it as real.
It's a mystery because I know the capabilities are there, but besides speculating about laziness, the only thing I can point out is that the facial design was poorly done. Perhaps in an effort to keep the movie PG but seriously the Beast's face was too human and too... pretty. Pointy nose, flat face, and his tiny protruding fangs got in the way and disappeared from scene to scene. So much else was adapted to look exactly the same, and I wish he had been too. At least his face should have had more structure. The one thing the Beast had going for him was Dan Stevens and the moments when you could tell he was somewhere behind all that badly designed CGI, actually giving a performance.
The animate inanimate objects were more successful in that they were not distracting or completely unbelievable, but they still were less expressive than they have been, either as cartoon characters or as portrayed by dramatic stage performers in funny costumes. Overall the special effects wound up giving off a distinct odor of careless minimal effort. Practical effects, sets, props, and costumes were happily not subject to that, and in their splendor, the spectacle thrives.
So I've hit on the worst the movie gives us -- now the best. That, of course is Luke Evans as Gaston. Full disclosure, I may have swooned when he first started singing. He has a fantastic voice with a clear, loud Broadway sound that is perfect for Gaston, and he matched it in his over-the-top, scenery-chewing performance. He was obviously having a blast in the role, and wound up making Gaston as great and as interesting as he's ever been. The downside of this was that he made everyone else look bad. Not his fault of course, and some people managed to look bad without his comparison.
Emma Watson for instance. And I want to be clear that going in I had some hopes for her Belle. I thought she looked the part, and could easily imagine her doing the role justice. However, her characterization of Belle was given very little energy -- Belle's friendly optimism turned to prim politeness and her determined passion to bouts of anger and irritated sarcasm. Her singing was also problematic, requiring auto-tuning, and simply not being as strong as a character like Belle requires. I can only suppose she was cast for her star power and pretty face.
New songs were added (similar to those exclusive to Broadway) and one was a ballad for the Beast. I did not expect that from Dan Stevens and was impressed. His speaking voice was digitally altered to be low and gravelly, but I couldn't tell if the same effect was applied to his singing. Either way, since I couldn't tell, it was well done. As a human he was much more easily enjoyed. He gets a cool opening scene (the movie's most creative expansion) which I was immensely glad to see, but his live-action screen time was still much too short for my preference. His eyes probably won him the role, but hopefully a more widespread appreciation of his talent will be the end result.
Ewan McGregor I had not heard sing before, but he delivered with expected aplomb in "Be Our Guest" and everywhere else. Emma Thompson was also excellently solid as Mrs. Potts, lovely and reliable to the very end. Kevin Kline's Maurice got to sing a little too which was nice. Josh Gad's LeFou was amusing in spite of sharing scenes with the distractingly good Gaston. Hattie Morahan surprised me with her presence. (Period drama fans will recognize her from the 2008 Sense & Sensibility where she played opposite Dan Stevens!) Gugu Mbatha-Raw as Plumette, Ian McKellen as Cogsworth, Stanley Tucci, Audra McDonald; the cast overall was a plethora of talent, though some were underused.
Whether or not this remake is worthy must depend on the individual. For some it may be, and for some it may not. I thought it was worth the ticket for Luke Evans alone, but I can't help but notice that practically everything that was good about this movie came directly from the original. It borrowed everything, slapped on CGI paint and considered it enough of a re-brand. When new things were added, they didn't make sense, like the book that can transport you anywhere -- what was that? Expanding with backstory and side plots isn't a bad idea in principle, but it was done only to stretch out the run time, and none of the additions mattered to the plot in the end.
It has its magical moments of singing, dancing, visual splendor, and of course romance, but don't suppose that credit belongs solely to this film; where this new Beauty and the Beast succeeds it succeeds because it tells a good story, not because it tells a good story well.
 |
| Because, as with all great tales that are old as time, it should be. |
With the original being only 25 years old, it's already a relatively up-to-date kind of fairytale. Are the advancements in GCI technology since 1991 enough to refresh the story? Does making it live-action and filling the beloved roles with appealing actors create new worth? Perhaps not -- but that didn't stop the production, so I figured it wouldn't have to stop our enjoyment either. I plunged in opening night with no inhibitions, but also not much confidence in the quality.
The worst thing was the visual effects. The idea was that today we are perfectly capable of making humanoid beasts and talking inanimate objects seem real so they can play believably next to live actors. Now, I have seen Guardians of the Galaxy, and Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, so I know this to be true; the technology has advanced to the point where its use is practical and able to hold up over time. So, why does the animation of the Beast look so bad? They used mo-cap technology, it's Disney so they should have plenty of money -- yet looking at his face, my mind could never accept it as real.
 |
| Sorry dude but you're just too human. |
It's a mystery because I know the capabilities are there, but besides speculating about laziness, the only thing I can point out is that the facial design was poorly done. Perhaps in an effort to keep the movie PG but seriously the Beast's face was too human and too... pretty. Pointy nose, flat face, and his tiny protruding fangs got in the way and disappeared from scene to scene. So much else was adapted to look exactly the same, and I wish he had been too. At least his face should have had more structure. The one thing the Beast had going for him was Dan Stevens and the moments when you could tell he was somewhere behind all that badly designed CGI, actually giving a performance.
The animate inanimate objects were more successful in that they were not distracting or completely unbelievable, but they still were less expressive than they have been, either as cartoon characters or as portrayed by dramatic stage performers in funny costumes. Overall the special effects wound up giving off a distinct odor of careless minimal effort. Practical effects, sets, props, and costumes were happily not subject to that, and in their splendor, the spectacle thrives.
 |
| And guess who brings the spectacle? |
So I've hit on the worst the movie gives us -- now the best. That, of course is Luke Evans as Gaston. Full disclosure, I may have swooned when he first started singing. He has a fantastic voice with a clear, loud Broadway sound that is perfect for Gaston, and he matched it in his over-the-top, scenery-chewing performance. He was obviously having a blast in the role, and wound up making Gaston as great and as interesting as he's ever been. The downside of this was that he made everyone else look bad. Not his fault of course, and some people managed to look bad without his comparison.
Emma Watson for instance. And I want to be clear that going in I had some hopes for her Belle. I thought she looked the part, and could easily imagine her doing the role justice. However, her characterization of Belle was given very little energy -- Belle's friendly optimism turned to prim politeness and her determined passion to bouts of anger and irritated sarcasm. Her singing was also problematic, requiring auto-tuning, and simply not being as strong as a character like Belle requires. I can only suppose she was cast for her star power and pretty face.
 |
| Poor girl. But my, what a guy that Luke Evans! |
New songs were added (similar to those exclusive to Broadway) and one was a ballad for the Beast. I did not expect that from Dan Stevens and was impressed. His speaking voice was digitally altered to be low and gravelly, but I couldn't tell if the same effect was applied to his singing. Either way, since I couldn't tell, it was well done. As a human he was much more easily enjoyed. He gets a cool opening scene (the movie's most creative expansion) which I was immensely glad to see, but his live-action screen time was still much too short for my preference. His eyes probably won him the role, but hopefully a more widespread appreciation of his talent will be the end result.
Ewan McGregor I had not heard sing before, but he delivered with expected aplomb in "Be Our Guest" and everywhere else. Emma Thompson was also excellently solid as Mrs. Potts, lovely and reliable to the very end. Kevin Kline's Maurice got to sing a little too which was nice. Josh Gad's LeFou was amusing in spite of sharing scenes with the distractingly good Gaston. Hattie Morahan surprised me with her presence. (Period drama fans will recognize her from the 2008 Sense & Sensibility where she played opposite Dan Stevens!) Gugu Mbatha-Raw as Plumette, Ian McKellen as Cogsworth, Stanley Tucci, Audra McDonald; the cast overall was a plethora of talent, though some were underused.
 |
| Still they had a LOT to do with the movie being as enjoyable as it was. |
Whether or not this remake is worthy must depend on the individual. For some it may be, and for some it may not. I thought it was worth the ticket for Luke Evans alone, but I can't help but notice that practically everything that was good about this movie came directly from the original. It borrowed everything, slapped on CGI paint and considered it enough of a re-brand. When new things were added, they didn't make sense, like the book that can transport you anywhere -- what was that? Expanding with backstory and side plots isn't a bad idea in principle, but it was done only to stretch out the run time, and none of the additions mattered to the plot in the end.
It has its magical moments of singing, dancing, visual splendor, and of course romance, but don't suppose that credit belongs solely to this film; where this new Beauty and the Beast succeeds it succeeds because it tells a good story, not because it tells a good story well.
Sunday, May 1, 2016
Upcoming Movie Roundup - May
So I got a big surprise in April when I went to see Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice because I was curious and my brother wanted to see it, and it turned out to be not the most terrible movie ever. I didn't actually hate it but managed to mostly enjoy it and that quite impressed me. But predictably no April movies were able to tempt me to see them. I did think about how much I wanted to see 10 Cloverfield Lane again quite a lot. And I looked for Midnight Special, but it isn't playing in my theater. So now we have come upon it; it's May, and it's time for War. Civil War.
What releases are you looking forward to this month? And are you Team Cap or Team Iron Man?
Captain America: Civil War
May 6th; PG-13
Obviously Captain America is the most hype movie this month... and possibly even this year, but we'll see. I'm not super anxious and excited to see it at this moment because based on what I've heard over the past few months, it's going to be an intense and hard-hitting movie. I feel like it's going to take a lot, and hoping that it gives enough to balance it out. Also, having seen Batman v Superman and Daredevil season 2, I've already had enough of the heroes fighting. So I'm hoping this movie can handle it better, but I'm also pretty confident that it will. Cap is basically the best ever, so I'm excited to see him lead another movie, and hoping the supporting cast won't crowd him too much, but at the same time the supporting cast and all the new characters we'll get to see is a huge part of the appeal. (I have one hyphenated word for you: Spider-Man.) Opening night tickets are already in my possession. All that's left now is to find time for a Winter Soldier re-watch. Go Team Cap!
High-Rise
May 13th (limited); R
This one's rating means that I won't watch it until I can watch it cut, but everything else about it makes me excited for when ever that day will be. This looks like my kind of movie. It's a sci-fi, and looks like an original, cerebral, and dark one too. And that would be good enough for me, but it also has a cast I'm quite partial to, with Tom Hiddleston and Luke Evans, plus Jeremy Irons and Sienna Miller. It currently holds a medium high score on RT... and has my attention fully.
Last Days in the Desert
May 13th (limited); PG-13
I don't really have much to say about this one but I thought it was worth mentioning. I like Ewan McGregor a lot, and Tye Sheridan also has a role, and it's got some good reviews, but it also looks like the kind of movie that could go very weird and theologically wonky. So I'm more curious to see what other people think than I am so see it for myself.
Love & Friendship
May 13th (limited); PG
The new Jane Austen adaptation! A guaranteed success, right? Well, there is a tiny catch: the book, Lady Susan, isn't an average Austen novel. It was one of Austen's earliest works, short, and written in the form of letters. This probably poses a few adaptation challenges to get around, but at least since it's so short they probably won't have to cut much out! I've never read it, but from the trailer it looks like a bright, witty satirical and fun period drama, and it's current %100 on RT backs that up. So -- perhaps it is a guaranteed success!
The Curse of Sleeping Beauty
May 13th (limited); NR
This one caught my attention because I was just thinking the other day how neat it would be if someone did a Sleeping Beauty story with a twist, and that twist should be that she sleeps right into the modern day and is woken up there. This movie has that general idea, but also takes it to plenty more, stranger places... it looks like a bit of a horror flick. It doesn't really look like a very good movie either, like it may not be executed very well. But I thought it's existence was a fun coincidence, and I'd like to keep an eye on how it does.
X-Men: Apocalypse
May 27th; NR
I got tired of X-Men after the last film, but this one has still kindled a surprisingly strong interest in me. Maybe because of how many new characters are coming and looking very promising -- or rather, old characters coming back as kids and therefore being re-cast and revitalized. Maybe because of Oscar Isaac being Apocalypse. Or maybe because the title actually justifies the stakes and scope the movie has to have as an X-Men movie. All X-Men movies seem to deal with the end of the world, but this one deserves to. So maybe that why. Ha, who am I kidding -- it's definitely Oscar Isaac. And the other things as a secondary. I definitely want to see this one, but I don't know when I'll be able to -- it's coming out at an inconvenient time. So I'll see it when I can and until then try not to get my hopes up that it'll be any better than the last one. Equal will do.
What releases are you looking forward to this month? And are you Team Cap or Team Iron Man?
Captain America: Civil War
May 6th; PG-13
Obviously Captain America is the most hype movie this month... and possibly even this year, but we'll see. I'm not super anxious and excited to see it at this moment because based on what I've heard over the past few months, it's going to be an intense and hard-hitting movie. I feel like it's going to take a lot, and hoping that it gives enough to balance it out. Also, having seen Batman v Superman and Daredevil season 2, I've already had enough of the heroes fighting. So I'm hoping this movie can handle it better, but I'm also pretty confident that it will. Cap is basically the best ever, so I'm excited to see him lead another movie, and hoping the supporting cast won't crowd him too much, but at the same time the supporting cast and all the new characters we'll get to see is a huge part of the appeal. (I have one hyphenated word for you: Spider-Man.) Opening night tickets are already in my possession. All that's left now is to find time for a Winter Soldier re-watch. Go Team Cap!
High-Rise
May 13th (limited); R
This one's rating means that I won't watch it until I can watch it cut, but everything else about it makes me excited for when ever that day will be. This looks like my kind of movie. It's a sci-fi, and looks like an original, cerebral, and dark one too. And that would be good enough for me, but it also has a cast I'm quite partial to, with Tom Hiddleston and Luke Evans, plus Jeremy Irons and Sienna Miller. It currently holds a medium high score on RT... and has my attention fully.
Last Days in the Desert
May 13th (limited); PG-13
I don't really have much to say about this one but I thought it was worth mentioning. I like Ewan McGregor a lot, and Tye Sheridan also has a role, and it's got some good reviews, but it also looks like the kind of movie that could go very weird and theologically wonky. So I'm more curious to see what other people think than I am so see it for myself.
Love & Friendship
May 13th (limited); PG
The new Jane Austen adaptation! A guaranteed success, right? Well, there is a tiny catch: the book, Lady Susan, isn't an average Austen novel. It was one of Austen's earliest works, short, and written in the form of letters. This probably poses a few adaptation challenges to get around, but at least since it's so short they probably won't have to cut much out! I've never read it, but from the trailer it looks like a bright, witty satirical and fun period drama, and it's current %100 on RT backs that up. So -- perhaps it is a guaranteed success!
The Curse of Sleeping Beauty
May 13th (limited); NR
This one caught my attention because I was just thinking the other day how neat it would be if someone did a Sleeping Beauty story with a twist, and that twist should be that she sleeps right into the modern day and is woken up there. This movie has that general idea, but also takes it to plenty more, stranger places... it looks like a bit of a horror flick. It doesn't really look like a very good movie either, like it may not be executed very well. But I thought it's existence was a fun coincidence, and I'd like to keep an eye on how it does.
X-Men: Apocalypse
May 27th; NR
I got tired of X-Men after the last film, but this one has still kindled a surprisingly strong interest in me. Maybe because of how many new characters are coming and looking very promising -- or rather, old characters coming back as kids and therefore being re-cast and revitalized. Maybe because of Oscar Isaac being Apocalypse. Or maybe because the title actually justifies the stakes and scope the movie has to have as an X-Men movie. All X-Men movies seem to deal with the end of the world, but this one deserves to. So maybe that why. Ha, who am I kidding -- it's definitely Oscar Isaac. And the other things as a secondary. I definitely want to see this one, but I don't know when I'll be able to -- it's coming out at an inconvenient time. So I'll see it when I can and until then try not to get my hopes up that it'll be any better than the last one. Equal will do.
Friday, January 1, 2016
Upcoming Movie Roundup - January
Happy 2016, friends! December was a wonderful movie month even though I only saw one new release, because that one new release was Star Wars: The Force Awakens, and it lived up to it's hype. I saw it on Fri, which was earlier than I expected to be able to, and even had to stand in line for the theater which was a first for me. It blew me away, and now I've seen it twice, with plans for a third, and you can read all about how much and why I loved it in my review here.
January movies never inspire much confidence for quality, but there are a few that have caught my eye. Are any January movies on your radar? And have you seen Star Wars yet???
Sherlock: The Abominable Bride
Jan 1st, 9:00 EST on PBS
One thing that is not practically guaranteed to be sub-par -- the Sherlock Christmas special! The Abominable Bride. No doubt it'll be fun and Sherlock-y, even if it is set in the 1890's. And also looks like a scary one, which is always a win. I'm very interested to see if there's any explanation for the era change, but either way I'm prepared to thoroughly enjoy it, and even more prepared to be annoyed at how long the wait for season 4 is as soon as it's over!
13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi
Jan 15th; R
This is a Michael Bay movie. And yet... it looks like a decent film. Or maybe I'm just too trusting. Michael Bay has a terrible track record of really terrible movies, but hey, at least this one breaks a few patterns. It's not a Transformers movie for one (though if it were secretly a Transformers movie, it would be the best movie ever), and it has an R rating, which at least caters it to a slightly different crowd. And it stars John Krasinski sporting his new action-hero look -- a look I definitely approve of. The only bad sign (besides the director's name) is how long the subtitle is. We don't need all that -- 13 Hours alone is much cooler.
The 5th Wave
Jan 15th; PG-13
Every time I am force to sit through this increasingly annoying trailer in order to watch The Force Awakens again, I say jokingly that I have to see this, because it had Liev Shreiber in it. I'm really only half joking. Perfectly timed to fill the void left by the Hunger Games, and attract fans who are floating around listlessly waiting for the next Divergent film, the newest dystopian-type film lead by a teenage girl is here! Now that the Hunger Games is over, these movies don't have to have the pretense of being good anymore, and good thing too, because this one does not look good. It's status as a knockoff is quite obvious, trying to be noticed by mashing together all the forms of dystopia; natural disaster, contagion, alien invasion, teens fighting in a war... all that's missing is zombies. Or maybe they're just missing from the trailer -- or in the next book, because you know this is a series. I just hope it's bad enough to be good fun to make fun of the badness!
Mojave
Jan 22nd; R
Okay, well... honestly this movie looks absolutely terrible, and the trailer gave away pretty much everything it seems except who's gonna survive, and who's gonna die. But I have to see it, because Oscar Isaac is in it and that means I'll enjoy it, no matter how terrible it is. Oscar Isaac and Garrett Hedlund trading cliched intimidating western dialogue and trying to kill each other... sounds good to me.
Jane Got a Gun
Jan 29th; R
I remember reading about all the trouble this movie had during production, so now I'm a little curious. It doesn't look like the kind of movie I'd really like, but it does have two bonuses -- two cool dudes named Joel Edgerton and Ewan McGregor. Will their draw balance out the repulsion of Natalie Portman playing the lead? Eh, it'll probably depend on how bored I am. Right now I'm much more interested in seeing a tomatometer score. The trailer is not very promising.
January movies never inspire much confidence for quality, but there are a few that have caught my eye. Are any January movies on your radar? And have you seen Star Wars yet???
Sherlock: The Abominable Bride
Jan 1st, 9:00 EST on PBS
One thing that is not practically guaranteed to be sub-par -- the Sherlock Christmas special! The Abominable Bride. No doubt it'll be fun and Sherlock-y, even if it is set in the 1890's. And also looks like a scary one, which is always a win. I'm very interested to see if there's any explanation for the era change, but either way I'm prepared to thoroughly enjoy it, and even more prepared to be annoyed at how long the wait for season 4 is as soon as it's over!
13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi
Jan 15th; R
This is a Michael Bay movie. And yet... it looks like a decent film. Or maybe I'm just too trusting. Michael Bay has a terrible track record of really terrible movies, but hey, at least this one breaks a few patterns. It's not a Transformers movie for one (though if it were secretly a Transformers movie, it would be the best movie ever), and it has an R rating, which at least caters it to a slightly different crowd. And it stars John Krasinski sporting his new action-hero look -- a look I definitely approve of. The only bad sign (besides the director's name) is how long the subtitle is. We don't need all that -- 13 Hours alone is much cooler.
The 5th Wave
Jan 15th; PG-13
Every time I am force to sit through this increasingly annoying trailer in order to watch The Force Awakens again, I say jokingly that I have to see this, because it had Liev Shreiber in it. I'm really only half joking. Perfectly timed to fill the void left by the Hunger Games, and attract fans who are floating around listlessly waiting for the next Divergent film, the newest dystopian-type film lead by a teenage girl is here! Now that the Hunger Games is over, these movies don't have to have the pretense of being good anymore, and good thing too, because this one does not look good. It's status as a knockoff is quite obvious, trying to be noticed by mashing together all the forms of dystopia; natural disaster, contagion, alien invasion, teens fighting in a war... all that's missing is zombies. Or maybe they're just missing from the trailer -- or in the next book, because you know this is a series. I just hope it's bad enough to be good fun to make fun of the badness!
Mojave
Jan 22nd; R
Okay, well... honestly this movie looks absolutely terrible, and the trailer gave away pretty much everything it seems except who's gonna survive, and who's gonna die. But I have to see it, because Oscar Isaac is in it and that means I'll enjoy it, no matter how terrible it is. Oscar Isaac and Garrett Hedlund trading cliched intimidating western dialogue and trying to kill each other... sounds good to me.
Jane Got a Gun
Jan 29th; R
I remember reading about all the trouble this movie had during production, so now I'm a little curious. It doesn't look like the kind of movie I'd really like, but it does have two bonuses -- two cool dudes named Joel Edgerton and Ewan McGregor. Will their draw balance out the repulsion of Natalie Portman playing the lead? Eh, it'll probably depend on how bored I am. Right now I'm much more interested in seeing a tomatometer score. The trailer is not very promising.
Monday, July 6, 2015
The Impossible
This review is Spoiler-free.
Based on the true story of the 2004 tsunami that hit Thailand, and one vacationing family of five's struggle to survive and find each other in the destruction.
The family in real-life was Spanish, but here they are British. Otherwise the basics of their story are all very accurate, but I imagine embellished a little in some of the details. Ewan McGregor is the father, Henry, and Naomi Watts is the mother, and central character, Maria. Their three sons, Lucas, Thomas, and Simon are played by Tom Holland, Samuel Joslin, and Oaklee Pendergast, respectively.
Full disclosure: I only gained an interest to watch this movie once Tom Holland was cast as Spider-Man, and I suddenly wanted to witness his acting abilities. I watched it for that reason -- and got more out of it than I expected to besides -- but satisfied myself on this front too. Tom Holland is absolutely a capable and talented actor. Most of the movie is from his perspective, and he is easily one of the most involving and relatable characters. He seems very well-trained in the craft, with lots of discipline. He delivered his lines and moved very deliberately (though the latter was a trait often obviously encouraged by the filming style and adopted by everyone) and used body language expertly and naturally. He was only slightly lacking in that he never managed any actual tears while crying.
And yes -- this is a crying movie. On that note: It was Ewan McGregor who impressed me most in the film, when his one very emotional scene was the most real-seeming in the movie, and the only scene that tempted me to cry along. Naomi Watts was nominated for a leading actress Oscar for her performance, and I can see why, but I can also see why she didn't win. There just wasn't enough there for her to do, but what she does do is noteworthy. The younger two boys were quite good too, but are featured considerably less than the previous three. The middle one, Samuel Joslin had one or two simple, profound moments.
This movie is very serious and wrenchingly emotional; not my usual cup of tea for a movie. But I did realize the good movie that it is. I appreciated the majority of it as high quality film making; was interested in half as much as an involving story; and even liked a fraction of that as personally memorable and enjoyable moments, details, and performances. It must have been extremely difficult to put together, film, and act in, and all of it had a definite air of high quality; it was thoughtfully scripted, expertly filmed, devotedly acted, neatly cut, and uniquely styled.
The dramatically ominous style came with a side effect though. It was only halfway innocently enhancing, and often was also used as a gimmick to help get that high emotional and dramatic level that was wanted (and to make the film last longer). A level that was achieved fully by exploiting what involving drama was naturally there, and if you must do that kind of thing, at least have the courtesy of being subtle about it. The only thing that wasn't ever affected by calculated tweaking and enhancing was the horror element, which was about as high as it could be all by itself. A solid half of the other moments were milked for all they were worth. The unaffected moments were the ones I loved, but artificial or not, it all left quite a big impression.
Knowing that the film's purpose was to garner an emotional response from its audience was the one thing I balked at. It felt dishonest; like an elaborate trick, and it shouldn't have, because it really was a real event. I got my enjoyment from everything except letting myself get involved in the emotions and drama, but I still felt as involved as I normally am in movies, and it still left me drained. I appreciated and was impressed by more than I expected -- the natural terror, the wonder, the look at characters completely removed from their reality and comfort zones, and the involved and dedicated performances and technical world around them that made it all real -- but all from an wary and removed distance. That is, after all, the best place from which to view a devastating tsunami of peaked emotions, drama, terror, and human tragedy like that of The Impossible.
Based on the true story of the 2004 tsunami that hit Thailand, and one vacationing family of five's struggle to survive and find each other in the destruction.
 |
| The Bennett family. |
The family in real-life was Spanish, but here they are British. Otherwise the basics of their story are all very accurate, but I imagine embellished a little in some of the details. Ewan McGregor is the father, Henry, and Naomi Watts is the mother, and central character, Maria. Their three sons, Lucas, Thomas, and Simon are played by Tom Holland, Samuel Joslin, and Oaklee Pendergast, respectively.
Full disclosure: I only gained an interest to watch this movie once Tom Holland was cast as Spider-Man, and I suddenly wanted to witness his acting abilities. I watched it for that reason -- and got more out of it than I expected to besides -- but satisfied myself on this front too. Tom Holland is absolutely a capable and talented actor. Most of the movie is from his perspective, and he is easily one of the most involving and relatable characters. He seems very well-trained in the craft, with lots of discipline. He delivered his lines and moved very deliberately (though the latter was a trait often obviously encouraged by the filming style and adopted by everyone) and used body language expertly and naturally. He was only slightly lacking in that he never managed any actual tears while crying.
 |
| The film follows two story lines -- Lucas and Maria in one... |
And yes -- this is a crying movie. On that note: It was Ewan McGregor who impressed me most in the film, when his one very emotional scene was the most real-seeming in the movie, and the only scene that tempted me to cry along. Naomi Watts was nominated for a leading actress Oscar for her performance, and I can see why, but I can also see why she didn't win. There just wasn't enough there for her to do, but what she does do is noteworthy. The younger two boys were quite good too, but are featured considerably less than the previous three. The middle one, Samuel Joslin had one or two simple, profound moments.
 |
| ... and Henry in the other, as he tries to find them while keeping Thomas and Simon safe. |
This movie is very serious and wrenchingly emotional; not my usual cup of tea for a movie. But I did realize the good movie that it is. I appreciated the majority of it as high quality film making; was interested in half as much as an involving story; and even liked a fraction of that as personally memorable and enjoyable moments, details, and performances. It must have been extremely difficult to put together, film, and act in, and all of it had a definite air of high quality; it was thoughtfully scripted, expertly filmed, devotedly acted, neatly cut, and uniquely styled.
The dramatically ominous style came with a side effect though. It was only halfway innocently enhancing, and often was also used as a gimmick to help get that high emotional and dramatic level that was wanted (and to make the film last longer). A level that was achieved fully by exploiting what involving drama was naturally there, and if you must do that kind of thing, at least have the courtesy of being subtle about it. The only thing that wasn't ever affected by calculated tweaking and enhancing was the horror element, which was about as high as it could be all by itself. A solid half of the other moments were milked for all they were worth. The unaffected moments were the ones I loved, but artificial or not, it all left quite a big impression.
 |
| It really was seriously, realistically scary at times. |
Knowing that the film's purpose was to garner an emotional response from its audience was the one thing I balked at. It felt dishonest; like an elaborate trick, and it shouldn't have, because it really was a real event. I got my enjoyment from everything except letting myself get involved in the emotions and drama, but I still felt as involved as I normally am in movies, and it still left me drained. I appreciated and was impressed by more than I expected -- the natural terror, the wonder, the look at characters completely removed from their reality and comfort zones, and the involved and dedicated performances and technical world around them that made it all real -- but all from an wary and removed distance. That is, after all, the best place from which to view a devastating tsunami of peaked emotions, drama, terror, and human tragedy like that of The Impossible.
Thursday, January 1, 2015
Upcoming Movie Roundup -- January 2015!
Happy New Year everyone! 2015 promises to be an incredibly exciting year for the movie fan, and it begins in January with... next to nothing.
The most exciting thing in my book is a TV series, so I'll start with that.
Agent Carter
Jan 6th; ABC, 8/7c
It's only a mini-series, with seven or eight parts only, but I'm just as excited for this as I would be for a movie. In fact this is almost better than a movie -- 6 hours instead of 2? Sounds good to me! I suppose it won't be as high quality as a film, but being set in the 40's and not being so typically high-tech as the Marvel movies or Agents of SHIELD, it's quality should ride more on the writing, and that's what I'm holding out hope for. Hayley Atwell's return as Agent Peggy Carter is very welcome, as is Dominic Cooper's as Howard Stark. I'm also looking forward to the addition of the real-life Jarvis, who was the inspiration for Tony Stark's computerized butler. He's being played by James D'Arcy, and even if it were Paul Bettany himself I wouldn't be more approving. This wins all my anticipation points for the month -- here's to hoping it'll be worth it!
Paddington
Jan 16th; PG
I'm confused about this one, because when I first saw the trailer, it annoyed me with it's silliness so much that I quit watching before it was over, but, it currently has a score of 97% on Rotten Tomatoes. Is this another classic case of "Terrible Trailer Nearly Ruins Great Movie" or, perhaps it's just a good kiddie movie, and not the kind I'd want to see. I've never even heard of the character before this, so I don't have any sentimental attachment either. The cast that includes Hugh Bonneville, Sally Hawkins, and Ben Whishaw is tempting, and the great reception from the critics sparks curiosity, but I doubt I'll be making plans see this one.
Blackhat
Jan 16th; R
This can be looked at a number of ways, but all I see is an action movie starring Chris Hemsworth. Which is a cool idea of course, but that doesn't mean it'll be worth seeing. The trailer is interesting enough, but my interest rides completely on it's reception.
Still Life
Jan 16th (limited); Unrated
I've only ever seen Eddie Marsan in supporting roles, but based on his scene-stealing performance as Mr. Pancks in Little Dorrit, I think he'd make a great lead, especially in a film like this one. And then there's Joanne Froggatt of Downton Abbey who is sweet and charming, and suddenly I want to see this movie. With the limited release who knows when a chance will come, but still. Still Life.
Mortdecai
Jan 23rd; Unrated
Oh boy. And I thought the Paddington trailer was annoying! I will be very much surprised if this turns out good, and that's too bad, because typically Paul Bettany and Ewan McGregor automatically make me interested in a movie, and Johnny Depp and Gwyneth Paltrow aren't bad either, plus the spy/mystery/comedy genre is sorely underused, but this looks unbearably silly and cheap.
I hope you're all having a fantastic 2015 so far! What are your movie plans for the first month of this promising year?
The most exciting thing in my book is a TV series, so I'll start with that.
Agent Carter
Jan 6th; ABC, 8/7c
It's only a mini-series, with seven or eight parts only, but I'm just as excited for this as I would be for a movie. In fact this is almost better than a movie -- 6 hours instead of 2? Sounds good to me! I suppose it won't be as high quality as a film, but being set in the 40's and not being so typically high-tech as the Marvel movies or Agents of SHIELD, it's quality should ride more on the writing, and that's what I'm holding out hope for. Hayley Atwell's return as Agent Peggy Carter is very welcome, as is Dominic Cooper's as Howard Stark. I'm also looking forward to the addition of the real-life Jarvis, who was the inspiration for Tony Stark's computerized butler. He's being played by James D'Arcy, and even if it were Paul Bettany himself I wouldn't be more approving. This wins all my anticipation points for the month -- here's to hoping it'll be worth it!
Paddington
Jan 16th; PG
I'm confused about this one, because when I first saw the trailer, it annoyed me with it's silliness so much that I quit watching before it was over, but, it currently has a score of 97% on Rotten Tomatoes. Is this another classic case of "Terrible Trailer Nearly Ruins Great Movie" or, perhaps it's just a good kiddie movie, and not the kind I'd want to see. I've never even heard of the character before this, so I don't have any sentimental attachment either. The cast that includes Hugh Bonneville, Sally Hawkins, and Ben Whishaw is tempting, and the great reception from the critics sparks curiosity, but I doubt I'll be making plans see this one.
Blackhat
Jan 16th; R
This can be looked at a number of ways, but all I see is an action movie starring Chris Hemsworth. Which is a cool idea of course, but that doesn't mean it'll be worth seeing. The trailer is interesting enough, but my interest rides completely on it's reception.
Still Life
Jan 16th (limited); Unrated
I've only ever seen Eddie Marsan in supporting roles, but based on his scene-stealing performance as Mr. Pancks in Little Dorrit, I think he'd make a great lead, especially in a film like this one. And then there's Joanne Froggatt of Downton Abbey who is sweet and charming, and suddenly I want to see this movie. With the limited release who knows when a chance will come, but still. Still Life.
Mortdecai
Jan 23rd; Unrated
Oh boy. And I thought the Paddington trailer was annoying! I will be very much surprised if this turns out good, and that's too bad, because typically Paul Bettany and Ewan McGregor automatically make me interested in a movie, and Johnny Depp and Gwyneth Paltrow aren't bad either, plus the spy/mystery/comedy genre is sorely underused, but this looks unbearably silly and cheap.
I hope you're all having a fantastic 2015 so far! What are your movie plans for the first month of this promising year?
Saturday, October 11, 2014
The Janeite Tag
Thanks to Hannah over at Miss Daydreamer's Place for tagging me to talk about my love for Jane Austen!
The Rules:
- Thank and link back to the person who tagged you.
- Tell us how you were introduced to Jane Austen and share one fun fact about your Janeite life (this fun fact can be anything from "I stayed up all night reading Emma" to "I visited Chawton and met Anna Chancellor.").
- Answer the tagger's questions.
- Write seven questions of your own.
- Tag as few as one or as many as seven other Janeites and let them know you've tagged them.
My introduction to the world of Jane Austen:
It would be hard to pinpoint the exact moment I became a fan of Austen, but it was sometime between when I first saw the 1995 Pride and Prejudice when I was about eleven, and when I finished reading all her books for the first time, when I was about eighteen. It was probably closer to the latter though, because even though I would watch P&P with my family every time they watched it, it took a while for me to come to appreciate anything more than the pretty dresses and the pretty horses. It could have been in '08, when the new version of Sense and Sensibility aired on TV, and waiting a week between episodes was filled with impatience. Or you could argue that it was when I first appreciated Austen's work in it's purest form; perhaps when I was at the end of Emma and it suddenly occurred to me how much I'd enjoyed the book -- way more than either of the film adaptions. To quote Lizzy on her loving Darcy, "It has been coming on so gradually, that I hardly know when it began. But I believe I must date it from my first seeing his beautiful grounds at Pemberly." So I guess you could say it really was the pretty dresses!
My fun fact about me and Austen:
This past summer I portrayed Mary Bennet in my theatre group's performance of Pride and Prejudice, a Musical. I got to sing and play the piano badly and everything. And now I feel slightly more connected to and understanding of poor Mary.
Hannah's Questions:
Oh, starting with a hard one, I see. I remember enjoying reading Emma the most, but I wouldn't take that to mean it was my favorite. Northanger Abbey made me laugh the most, and Persuasion was wonderfully melancholy. But I think I'll have to go with the classic, and say Pride and Prejudice. It has a little of everything, and I think the best romance.
Who is your favourite Austen hero and heroine? (I guess that could be considered two questions!) So since it's two questions, I can pick a hero and heroine who hail from separate stories? If I had to choose them as a pair, I'd say Catherine Morland and Henry Tilney. They are just so adorable together. Separately, I've always been partial to Mr. Knightley, and identified most with Elinor Dashwood. But don't underestimate my liking of Lizzy and Darcy, separately, and as a pair.
Who is your favourite secondary character?
It's funny how most of Austen's secondary characters are usually pretty dis-likable, isn't it? I could never really find it in me to dislike Mr. Churchill though, ever since I first saw him as Ewan McGregor with that adorable smile and that weird, long red hair.
Which relative of any of Austen's heroines/heroes do you find most annoying?
Mrs. Bennet. Next question! Oh, wait, maybe Lady Catherine... hmmm, no, I'll stick with Mrs. Bennet.
Provide up to five of your favourite Austen quotes. (I know, hard! Just pick a few random quotes that you love. They don't have to be your absolute favourites) (Passages, more like, for me!)
- (A hilarious conversation between Catherine and Henry in Northanger Abbey.)‘“Now I must give one smirk, and then we may be
rational again." Catherine turned away her head, not knowing whether she
might venture to laugh. "I see what you think of me," said he gravely
-- "I shall make but a poor figure in your journal tomorrow."
"My journal!"
"Yes, I know exactly what you will say: Friday, went to the Lower Rooms; wore my sprigged muslin robe with blue trimmings -- plain black shoes -- appeared to much advantage; but was strangely harassed by a queer, half-witted man, who would make me dance with him, and distressed me by his nonsense."
"Indeed I shall say no such thing."
"Shall I tell you what you ought to say?"
"If you please."
"I danced with a very agreeable young man, introduced by Mr. King; had a great deal of conversation with him -- seems a most extraordinary genius -- hope I may know more of him. That, madam, is what I wish you to say."’ - (My admitting to liking this one might make me out to be anti-social, but, oh well. Said by Lizzy.) "The more I see of the world, the more am I dissatisfied with it; and every day confirms my belief of the inconsistency of all human characters, and of the little dependence that can be placed on the appearance of either merit or sense."
- (This one from Mr. Bennet reflects the lighter side of my anti-social tendencies.) "For what do we live, but to make sport for our neighbours, and laugh at them in our turn?"
- (This is one of my favorite moments of Elinor's.)"My dear," said she [Mrs. Jennings], entering, "I have just recollected that I have
some of the finest old Constantia wine in the
house, that ever was tasted -- so I have brought a glass of it for
your sister. My poor husband! how fond he was of it! Whenever he had
a touch of his old cholicky gout, he said it did him more good than
anything else in the world. Do take it to your sister."
"Dear ma'am," replied Elinor, smiling at the difference of the complaints for which it was recommended, "how good you are! But I have just left Marianne in bed, and, I hope, almost asleep; and as I think nothing will be of so much service to her as rest, if you will give me leave, I will drink the wine myself."
Mrs. Jennings, though regretting that she had not been five minutes earlier, was satisfied with the compromise; and Elinor, as she swallowed the chief of it, reflected that, though its good effects on a cholicky gout were at present of little importance to her, its healing powers on a disappointed heart might be as reasonably tried on herself as on her sister. - (And since I've already made this very, very long, I'll put Mr. Knightly's declaration of love last. Not the entire thing though. But I like the entire thing.) “My dearest Emma," said he, "for dearest you will always be, whatever
the event of this hour's conversation, my dearest, most beloved Emma --
tell me at once. Say 'No,' if it is to be said." She could really say
nothing. "You are silent," he cried, with great animation; "absolutely
silent! at present I ask no more."
Emma was almost ready to sink under the agitation of this moment. The dread of being awakened from the happiest dream, was perhaps the most prominent feeling.
"I cannot make speeches, Emma," he soon resumed; and in a tone of such sincere, decided, intelligible tenderness as was tolerably convincing. "If I loved you less, I might be able to talk about it more. But you know what I am. You hear nothing but truth from me. I have blamed you, and lectured you, and you have borne it as no other woman in England would have borne it.”
What is your favourite adaptation for each of Austen's books?
For Pride and Prejudice, the '95 version. Hands down, no contest. (If you're interested, here is my review of the '95, and my review of the '05.)
Northanger Abbey is also easy, since I've only ever seen the '07 version with Felicity Jones and J J Feild. In spite of it's shortness, I consider it to be a very good adaption, perfectly cast at the very least. With the rest though, things get a little more complicated. (Click here for my review.)
For Sense and Sensibility, the '08 version. It's a close call though, as the '95 version is great as well, but the longer runtime, the casting of people who look like they could be their required age, the great casting of the side characters, Dan Stevens, and David Morressey all make me partial to that version.
With Emma, there are commendable aspects in three versions, but I've never really included Kate Beckinsale's version; the race is really between Gwyneth Paltrow's and Romola Garai's, and they're practically equal, only with differing good parts and bad parts. Combined, they would be nearly perfect, but as it is, I think I must go with Paltrow's version, because it's better-made in its own right.
For Mansfield Park, I have to say the '07 version with Billie Piper. None of these adaptations are very good, but the 1999 is just way too different from the book, and the 1983 is old and of low quality had distractingly ugly actors. Plus the '07 has James D'Arcy in it.
With Persuasion it's halfway like Emma -- if I could combine the versions it would make a good one -- and halfway like Mansfield Park -- there really aren't any good versions. The '95 version is certainly the best adaptation, but it doesn't have the heart (however misguided) of the '07 version. Neither does the characters how I see them. (Click here for my review of the '07 version. But know that my opinion of since writing this has dampened slightly.)
Are there any books that you would recommend to a fellow Janeite? For example: some books that I would recommend to a fellow Jane Austen fan are Much Ado About Nothing, North and South and Cold Comfort Farm.
Oh yes, I definitely agree with the recommendation of North and South. Great book and film adaptation. If you can handle longer and darker, I would recommend Little Dorrit, which was amazing, and more romantic than I expected it to be. (And it has a fantastic, 8-hour-long film adaptation too (my review)) And perhaps if I'd read other Dickens' I could possibly recommend those, of maybe a Bronte, but sadly Austen is just about as far as I've gone with that type of novel. The next closest thing that springs to mind is The Great Gatsby, but I'd recommend that to anyone. If you like the Austen-type movies though, you absolutely must see Cranford -- it's wonderful.
 |
| Little Dorrit |
It seems that all my Janeite blog friends have been tagged already, I'm going to opt out of the last two steps. However, if you do love Austen, haven't been tagged yet, and want to participate, you absolutely should -- consider yourself tagged and answer the same questions I did!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)