Upcoming Movie Roundup - December

I've been playing catch-up in November and didn't see anything that I mentioned yet. Though I did watch The King off Netflix (a November release that I overlooked somehow) and was impressed enough with it that I wanted to give it a review. (Read it here!) We got to the theater to see Jojo Rabbit, which was a wonderful little film, full of wicked humor and genuine heart. (Read my review here!) And I caught up on one that I wanted to see in theaters but never did -- The Peanut Butter Falcon. It was so good, clean, warm and full of adventure that I wish I had seen it in theaters, but I'm glad I've seen it now. (Review here!)

Now it's December (Merry Christmas!) and there's one last movie I need to see before my end-of-year list will be complete. And it's not Star Wars, though I'm looking forward to that, too. There's more than a few good looking releases coming before 2020 though -- I hope the decade ends with a fantastic month of movies!

What looks good to you?? See y'all again in the New Year!



The Aeronauts
Limited release Dec 6th, streaming Dec 20th; PG-13
Eddie Redmayne hires Felicity Jones to fly a hot air balloon for him so he can study the atmosphere. It says inspired by a true story, so you know it's 100% fictional, and it seems like the movie throws one obstacle after another at them to ramp up the action and tension aspect. Still it'll be streaming on Amazon since it's an Amazon production -- and it's an adventure! I'll always give adventure movie their due chance to impress.




Richard Jewell
In theaters Dec 13th; R
Now this Clint Eastwood film is actually a true story. About a security guard who found a bomb and saved a ton of lives, but then was smeared by the media who believed that he set the bomb in the first place. He fought them (my favorite Sam Rockwell play his lawyer) and proves his innocence, but the media of course didn't spread the truth like they did the lie. They'd already ruined his life, why bother to take it back? So Mr. Eastwood is making this film so that everyone will know and his name will be cleared in public perception as well. It's sad though, because Jewell died back in 2007. Still it's a story worth telling. I'm glad it's being told, and I'll definitely watch it.




Jumanji: The Next Level
In theaters Dec 13th; PG-13
The Rock, Jack Black, Kevin Hart, Karen Gillan (and even Nick Jonas) are back for round two of this surprisingly fun reboot of the Jumanji franchise. I seriously don't expect this to rise to the same levels as the last one (genuinely good dumb fun can be hard to do with a big head but we'll see) but even if it doesn't it's not like it's going to ruin anything. A rare example of worry-free sequel!




Uncut Gems
Limited release Dec 13th; R
I may have heard of this one because it's an A24 production crime drama hype. But the only reason I'd want to watch is this: to see Adam Sandler do this level of acting. It's something I'm not surprised he had in him, and it's about time it came out.




Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker
In theaters Dec 20th; PG-13
I mean... it's Star Wars, so I'll be there. I was happy when J.J. got the job for this movie, but still haven't been able to build hype for it very far. I expect it'll be about as good as The Force Awakens, but even if it turns out worse than The Last Jedi it won't really make much difference. One thing I know will happen, and that's all I need: Rey, Finn, and Poe, actually in scenes together. Whoever heard of a Star Wars trilogy where the leading trio only interact in the third movie?? But at least it'll happen before it all ends. Maybe it'll be fun, maybe not. I'm really just curious to see at this point!




Cats
In theaters Dec 20th; PG
Another case of curiosity. Insert curiosity/cat joke here, haha. This is such a bizarre mix of awful and unique. I can't tear my eyes away. I won't see it in theaters, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't interested at all. It's just to weird to ignore.




Spies in Disguise
In theaters Dec 25th; PG
This looks silly. And probably not very good. I'm sure it's more made for the actors, Will Smith and Tom Holland to mess around with than it is a story that's good, entertaining, and worthwhile in its own right -- but since I like the cast, I'm sure I'll give it a chance someday. I just kinda wish Tom Holland would stop wasting his career. Seems like Hollywood has him pigeonholed (pun not intended but I'll allow it) as the endearing goofy idiot and I'm already growing tired of it.




Little Women
In theaters Dec 25th; PG
Every once in a while you need a new adaptation of Little Women, and this one has top-notch production value that's getting me pretty excited. I loved Greta Gerwig's writing and directing in Lady Bird. Also the stars from that film, Saoirse Ronan and Timothée Chalamet were great, and seem very well cast as Jo and Laurie perspectively. Emma Watson as Meg isn't ideal but will likely work, and I haven't see Florence Pugh (Amy) in anything yet but hear tell she's talented. I'd love to see this wind up being a high quality as faithful adaptation -- I don't think it's a guarantee, but here's hoping!




1917
Limited release Dec 25th; R
And THIS is most anticipated of the whole year! A WWI story, in which two soldiers must race to warn another group of an impending ambush. The film takes place in real time, shot as if it were one, long continuous shot for the entire feature. As cool as that sounds, that's also my biggest worry, that the gimmick will distract from the story. Or even that the story won't have been developed far due to reliance on the gimmick. There are many big names here -- Benedict Cumberbatch, Colin Firth, Mark Strong, Andrew Scott, and Richard Madden -- but the two lead are less known: George MacKay and Dean-Charles Chapman. Chapman was in Netflix's The King briefly, and MacKay has been doing impressive indie work for a while already. He's one of my current favorite actors, and I'm excited to see him lead a film that could easily be a favorite of the year, if all goes to plan!

Upcoming Movie Roundup - February

In January I accomplished my oh-so-ambitious plan of seeing one movie in the theaters! La La Land was excellent and worth the wait. Here's my gushy review. Of the TV shows I talked about last month, Sherlock was such a sad failure. (I'm not mad, I'm just... disappointed.) Here are my untempered thoughts on that. Netflix's A Series of Unfortunate Events was an absolute hit for me though -- everything that I hoped the new attempt at an adaptation would do was done every bit as excellently as I dreamed. I haven't reviewed it though, and I'm not sure I will. If you're interested to read a review of it from me, let me know! But just know that I highly recommend it! I've also been watching Emerald City on NBC. It's not great, but is good enough that we haven't quit yet. The promise of a definite end is definitely what's keeping me in. Anyone else watching this? I'd love to hear your thoughts on it!

February is back to normal with a nice wide spread of interesting releases -- most of which I'll be looking out for reviews on. There's no huge must-see, but I'll be very surprised if we don't go see The Lego Batman Movie!

What looks good to you this month?


The Space Between Us
Feb 3rd; PG-13
This one's based on a book, so of course now I'm more interesting in reading it than I am watching it... although I do like Asa Butterfield, and Britt Robertson isn't bad. The thing is, the most appealing side of this is the space/Mars stuff, but it looks like he's gonna spend most of his time (and therefore most of the movie's time) on Earth. And then it's in serious danger of being just another fish-out-of-water rom-com, which would be a waste of the premise in my opinion.




The Lego Batman Movie
Feb 10th; PG
Will Arnett's Batman gets his very own very well-deserved movie! There's been so many trailers that we've probably seen most of the movie already, and it's unlikely this one will have the same real-world connection as The Lego Movie did. But gosh, so far I've seen nothing that is short of hilarious with this film's advertising, and it seems to set up for a good amount of depth too. So even if it's not as exceptional as The Lego Movie, I'm excited for a fun time at the theater with the best Batman ever!




A United Kingdom
Feb 10th; PG-13
Looks like a decent romance, and probably a political drama too. Not at all my favorite genres, but I thought it was worth mentioning. There's been a lot of movies lately with themes focused on racism, so if this one wants to stand out it would need to be a worthwhile story, (and perhaps have something new to say on the subject too) and of that, it's hard to tell from the trailer. It is done by the director of Belle though, and that's a promising sign.




The Great Wall
Feb 17th; PG-13
Dear Matt Damon -- What are you doing, buddy? You were in The Martian, and now this? Okay, as far as action-centered lite fantasy films go, this one looks like it could be fun, and will probably be at least decently entertaining from the its visual alone. As far as all that goes. I don't get Matt Damon in this, though. What's the appeal -- for him and for us? There's so many other actors that could have played the part, probably do better on the action side, and not waste their acting chops... but hey, maybe I'm missing something. Or... maybe not.




A Cure for Wellness
Feb 17th; R
If it weren't for the too-hard-for-me rating this might've been the most interesting movie of the month. Dane DeHaan and Jason Isaacs are typically great, the plot is intriguingly crazy and mysterious, and it is visually both creepy and spectacular. If it turns out as good as it looks, I'll look forward to an opportunity to see it. However I'm not counting on it -- it could very well be one of those films that edits together a memorable trailer out of a lot of good-looking nonsense.




Collide
Feb 24th; PG-13
Nicholas Hoult. Felicity Jones. Action flick. I mean, even if it is otherwise the worst movie on the face of the Earth it's still gotta be worth watching just for that, right? Also Ben Kingsley and Anthony Hopkins support. The appeal of the cast makes the any issue of the movies quality pretty much obsolete -- I'm gonna want to watch this no matter what. It doesn't look like it has the most original plot or ideas, but I seriously doubt it'll be the worst movie ever either. In fact, it looks quite fun and action-packed!




Legion
FX starting Feb 8th
Some crazy stuff is about to go down. This new Marvel TV series stars Dan Stevens as the X-Man Legion, and... the trailers don't make any sense and promise all kinds of crazy-cool mind-bending. I only know the basics about this character, but it wouldn't make a difference if I knew nothing at all. It's Marvel. It's Dan Stevens. It looks like this. What else do you need to know? Oh, Aubrey Plaza is in it too -- that's just icing. Definitely excited for this!

Rogue One: A Star Wars Story

Major Spoilers.

In the first non-Episode Star Wars film, we jump back in time to just before the legendary events of Episode 4, where Jyn Erso (Felicity Jones) an every-girl with a tragic childhood and a cold attitude shaped by it becomes a key piece in the Rebellion's increasingly desperate attempts to fight back against the evil Empire.

Directed by Godzilla's Gareth Edwards

Testing the waters outside of the lines that have been in place for so long, there's bound to be a misstep or two. Rogue One hits all the checkpoints of a successful, entertaining film, but going deeper, it gets more complicated. There are some undeniably great aspects, and some arguably bad ones, and it's all mixed together.

As I see it, the foundation of the movie's main problems is this: it's an emotional and personal story, but is told too much like it's an action blockbuster. For comparison, that was the appropriate way to tell The Force Awakens. Even though it had many important, personal aspects to it, it was, at heart, a space epic, and was told as such. Rogue One is at heart an intimate story; a character journey. On a larger scale we already know what will happen; what we need to see is Jyn, her emotional journey and the things that she cares for.

...the people she cares for.

And when the film does focus small, it's exactly what it should be, inherently darker, but never less than the Star Wars level of engaging. But it doesn't always do that, getting distracted, giving in to the temptation to be big, and epic, and then using the characters only to drive the plot. Then useless things start to fill the run time. Like cameos and winking references. Some of them fun additions, but narratively they gunked up the works. Even Darth Vader, who I enjoyed seeing again in spite of apprehensions. CGI Leia and Tarkin could have been cut completely, and not only because the effects (impressive as they were) were distracting. Even the excellent battle scenes could've been cut back, when not relating directly to the individual characters.

And unfortunately, when the film forgets about its heroine, she doesn't come across well. When we don't get to focus on understanding her, she comes across as one-dimensional; just a tough girl in a bad mood. I loved the brief glimpses we got of her vulnerabilities -- her nightmares of being abandoned, her cynical resistance to feel anything, or the scene where her father dies. But those things weren't developed to complete her arc. The framework was all there, especially in her fear on abandonment, but it wasn't explored and filled in enough for us to feel the full impact when her friends never abandon her. To show her issues resolve.

Forget the action; I want to see some relationships growing.

I'm being hard on character with this movie because all the characters die. It would have been different if they had lived. Even without a sequel, we would know that they continue to grow and change. At the very least Jyn's death needed to be the final piece of closure for her arc. In retrospect I can see that her journey was completed technically, if you fill in some gaps with assumption, but it felt unresolved at the time. I should be able to go back a second time and experience everything properly, but that doesn't mean it's not a flaw.

Normally, I'll guard myself from emotion in films, but I expected the deaths going in, and was constantly preparing myself to embrace the sadness; ready to be moved. I wanted this film to break my heart but, busy and distracted, it didn't linger in the sadness long enough to fully affect me. Every time I'd start to tear up the scene changed to something not sad. That being said, the sadness that was there didn't feel manipulative, but natural, and easy to fall into. It is a sad movie, and I can't fault it for not going as far as I was willing to go.

It is much sadder now, thinking about it with my own filter in my head.

And I don't want to fault it either. There a quite a few details about the way this film was done that I wish had been different, but at its core it got everything right. You can see a good story there. A story that maybe wasn't told as clearly as it could have been, but was told nonetheless, with dedication, a lot of heart, and a great sense of darkness and gritty beauty. My biggest question going into the movie was "will the story be truly worth telling?" and I felt that the answer and my opinion of the film would coincide. Well I was right, and the answer is undoubtedly yes.

I knew it going in and I was happy with my choice coming out: Cassian (Diego Luna) was my favorite. I definitely think he could have used more development, like almost all the characters, but my initial impression was a pleasant surprise at how developed he was... fairly quickly followed by a wish for even more. He was very compelling to me; a worn soldier who follows his orders, knowing that the end will justify the means. And I could have watched a full two hours of just him and Jyn having heated arguments. Their relationship was built up really well for a while before speeding along to the conclusion, and had a lot of great potential; if I could reorganize the film's focus, I'd put the spotlight directly on them.

I love that he has to suppress emotion in order to work for the rebellion, and Jyn does the same to keep herself out of it. 

Nothing but love for K-2SO -- he was the best comic relief (basically the only comic relief) as a droid with no verbal filter. Nothing but an endless supply of excellently unique humor, delivered in the perfect way that only Alan Tudyk can supply. (He also performed motion-capture for the character on set.) But of course, that led to an equally great amount of heart from him as well... and a surprising amount of badassery. His death scene was the best and maybe the most affecting of them all.

The other three rebels of the group (pilot Bhodi (Riz Ahmed), blind guy Chirrut (Donnie Yen) and blind guy's friend Baze (Wen Jiang)) sadly didn't have time to make a huge impression before the end, but I was attached enough to them to feel significance at their deaths. They all were good for the screen time they received, and I'm sure the future will see me more familiar with and attached to them. Mads Mikkelsen as Jyn's father Galen is very cool, and his character expertly done. No complaints at all -- he got everything done with limited time and drama and style to spare. Forest Whitaker was good too, but in the end, unimportant.

This scene was so beautiful...

The film's villain Krennic was overshadowed by the bigger, arguably unnecessary villains above him, which was too bad, because Ben Mendelsohn made him a great, stylish, and easy to hate villain, and he could have owned the screen alone. I really wanted the climax to be more just him and Jyn in an epic personal struggle instead of the whole epic-in-scale one we got instead. That moment on the tower lasted a mere fraction of the time it could have.

I get the feeling that Rogue One was a little... disconnected. Or misinformed. I don't think it understood what we wanted out of a Star Wars spinoff film. All the things I didn't care for seemed like the stuff they thought was fan service, and where I wanted to go deeper was often casually glazed over or cut short. Maybe that's only me though. I know they wanted to cater to the broadest audience possible here, and to do that the movie had to find a balance between its inherit personal nature and a widely appealing blockbuster one. The balance is awkward, but it may be the most ideal, considering the circumstances.

Not a perfect film... but a great story.

I don't mean to cut this movie any slack where it doesn't deserve it, but, in the end, my view of it can't help but be overwhelmingly positive -- in spite of my complaining and wishing for more out of the characters. I wouldn't wish for more if I hadn't loved them, after all. A little misguided perhaps, but Rogue One's Star Wars story is a story worth telling, and a brave and beautiful plunge into the ever-expanding reaches of a galaxy far, far away.

Upcoming Movie Roundup - December

In November I went to see Doctor Strange, and it was everything I didn't know how to hope it would be! A wonderful surprise, and a fun and original origin film from Marvel. And then in an unexpected turn of events, I also went to see Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them with some friends. And I thoroughly enjoyed it, in spite of a handful of less-than-great aspects. I said in November that I didn't want to invest in a new long series, but I'm afraid I might have done accidentally.

And now -- December. The end of 2016! So tell me, what is your favorite film of the year so far? And are there any movies releasing in December that you think might displace it?

Here's what's interesting me...


La La Land
Dec 8th; PG-13
Honestly, all I need to know concerning this film is that it's from Damien Chazelle, the writer and director of Whiplash. And, equally as honestly, if I didn't know it was from him, and watched this trailer, then THAT would be all I need to know. So, at this point, I already know too much. I even know that it stars Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone. I have a lot of questions, like is it a legit musical, or is the "musical" moments just fantasy? Or daydreams? Cause you know -- La La Land. And there's some weird stuff going on in the trailer, but I kinda want it all to be real. But anyway, that doesn't really effect that fact that I want to see this movie! It looks so beautiful, in every sense of the word. I seriously doubt this could be anything but excellent.




Rogue One: A Star Wars Story
Dec 15th; PG-13
It's hard to put my finger on what exactly excites me about this movie. First, it's Star Wars, so I have to see it. There's no way I won't. But also, it's a smaller scale story. It's not about the Jedi, with their chosen ones and prophesies and such, it's just average people caught up in the rebellion. It's a neat opportunity to be different. Like, they go undercover in the Death Star, so is it going to be more of a spy film? A Mission: Impossible kind of thing? And then there's the cast. I've always liked Felicity Jones, so I'm ready to love her character, and I can already feel a little crush developing on Diego Luna's character, just from the trailer. (I just realized I've seen him before, in Elysium! He was the dude with the pigtails. No wonder I like him.) There's also Mads Mikkelsen, and Forest Whitaker, and Alan Tudyk voicing the robot! And then, there's the look of it. I mean, good grief, you could play the trailer, pause it anywhere randomly, have it printed and it'd be the most gorgeous piece of art. If the entire movie looks like that, I might be so distracted that I don't even notice the story. And that seems like that is the only thing that's up in the air right now. But seriously, if Episode 7 could be so fantastic just by copying Episode 4's plot, there's not much to be worried about. All they have to do is come up with something original that fits inside the preexisting narrative, and I'm there. Well, I'm there anyway, but there you go.




Assassin's Creed
Dec 20th; PG-13
NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION! Ahem. So, I'm not a big video game person, and the only reason I even knew about this movie is because everyone else does. My brother has lots to say on the subject of this movie, but for me, it boils down to this: It's an action movie, so is the story there, and, are the visuals there? From the trailer the story is ambiguous. That could be a good thing, if they're just trying to not reveal too much, or it could simply mean the story is not there. Same thing with the visuals. It seems to promise good things, but if what we see here is the very best they have, the movie won't be able to stand on visuals alone. Personally, I'd really like it to end up on the positive side. I like Michael Fassbender, he can handle action well, and the sci-fi side of it is interesting to me. But honestly, it'd be the bigger surprise if it wound up being truly good.




Passengers
Dec 20th; PG-13
From the moment I saw that Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence were going to star in a space sci-fi movie together I was on board. And, well, I still am, but my expectations have slowly been diminishing since the original announcement. Like, I'm all for a little romance with my sci-fi, but this is more "a little sci-fi with the romance." The only news I've seen concerning the film is about the sex scene. Not a great sign, even if it is PG-13. And something I'd opt to cut out completely -- I like the actors too much. Maybe it'll surprise me and wind up being a great sci-fi story as well after all, but I'm not confident. The premise is very neat, and the look of it is great -- just my kind of thing. I love how as the trailer goes on they slowly morph from clean and pristine to panicked and dirty. It one of those times where I'll just have to wait and see, but man, I'm really hoping here.




Sing
Dec 20th; PG
This animated movie as about a singing competition with animals, and is stuffed full of big names. Too full, I think. I saw a couple different trailers for this, and the one I have here made me pretty interested to see the movie, but the other one tried very hard to cancel that out. The first trailer gave the impression that the movie was focusing mainly on one story -- that of the kid gorilla voiced by Taron Egerton -- and letting all the other characters be more in the background. But it's clear now that all the characters will be basically equal. It's a kid's version of Love Actually with animals! So now I bet that a lot less than average effort is going to be put into each story. It's a kid's movie, so for them that hardly matters, but for me the only appeal left is hearing the actors sing. And we don't even get to see them sing.




Silence
Dec 22nd; R
The latest from Martin Scorsese is based on a novel, and about two missionaries -- Andrew Garfield and Adam Driver -- who go dangerously and illegally into Japan in search of one of their own, Liam Neeson. It's getting a bit of Oscar talk, and looks serious and intense but also highly artistic, and I just hope that it isn't only existing to be Oscar bait, but actually existing to tell its story. It's definitely a different story that we haven't seen before, and I'd love to see it find success if it's as good as it looks even without the help of the Academy.




A Monster Calls
Dec 22nd; PG-13
A fantasy coming of age story that has Felicity Jones, Toby Kebbell, Liam Neeson and Sigourney Weaver surrounding the newcomer in the lead. From the trailer, this doesn't look super interesting to me, though it does look neat and uniquely dark for a movie where the lead is twelve years old. The critics seem to think it's worth our time, so I'll definitely be keeping an eye on it.




Paterson
Dec 27th; R
Just this trailer leaves me feeling so relaxed and happy. I love the tone. And it's got Adam Driver in it, and that's pretty much all I need to know! Definitely need to see this one. It's limited release only leaves the question of "when?"

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:

What is your favourite Jane Austen novel?
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!)

1. (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."’
2.  (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."
3. (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?"
4. (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.
5. (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!

The Amazing Spider-Man 2

Minor spoilers throughout. Major spoilers have a warning.

Here we go again. This sequel to a reboot not unexpectedly feels very familiar; a different version of a story we've seen many times before. Parts from our friendly neighborhood Spider-Man's last movie are even reiterated just in case you're clueless as to the origin story of Spider-Man (as if!) rendering the last movie all but unnecessary. And we are subjected yet again to Spidey's worries that the people of NYC don't appreciate him, that he is constantly putting his girl in danger, and that he won't be able to keep his secret. However, the fact that we've seen it before is the only thing making it slightly tiresome, because it is done with more grace than ever. And there's more here than just reiteration, and a lot of it is unexpected. Unexpected and good.

Nice view. But I'd still be worried about falling without my web-shooters.

Andrew Garfield's Peter Parker's energy, charm and likability continue to be unending. He is what makes these movies worthwhile. Snarky and hip, yet understanding, and his heroism is fully fledged. He's just as likely to help a kid being pestered by bullies as he is to do something to garner fame and attention. I realize the kid was little more than a ploy to make us see how sweet Spidey is, but come on; he was adorable, introducing himself like that. He knows he's needed and can no more resist lending a helping-web than he can resist his beautiful, sassy girl, Gwen. He and Emma Stone are so natural together that during some of their scenes of playful, intimate banter, I got a distinct impression of being a third wheel and thought that I should probably leave them alone.

I wonder if they banter like that in real life...

Ever since I saw him in the trailer I knew Dane DeHaan's Harry would be the highlight of this movie, and I was right. DeHaan's fantastic, detailed style of acting is one you'd usually find in indie films, and it sets him apart. His intricate performance was bursting -- begging for more screen-time, and not only made him perfectly believable as the bitter, neglected son of an extremely cold and even more wealthy man, but makes us understand his conflict, and be involved in his development. All without being bashed over the head with the information via the script -- simply paying attention reveals it naturally.

Then he abruptly becomes the Green Goblin, and from there the comic style of the movie worked against him. The villain side would work better as a more subtly and darkly crazy, rather than a cackling villain typical of cheesy superhero flicks and episodes of Phineas and Ferb. Fortunately, his time spent cackling was limited, giving plenty of opportunity for the character to be molded to DeHaan's better abilities for later. (I hope I'm not assuming too much thinking he'll return? Obviously he needs to.)

"Isn't that the question of the day."

Then there's the big villain, Electro. Jamie Foxx's performance is of course great, before and after being superpowered. But the after is the real him; the before is just teasing us for the main event, and when it comes, then he is complete. He rocks the villainous monologues, the maniacal cackle -- or crackle in his case -- and the glowing blue skin, and is over-the-top and out-of-this world. But his origin story and motivations are as cliche as cliche gets, and therefore I hardly cared one way or another about him once he made the unbelievable leap from mild mannered and invisible to fantastic, vengeful and electric.

Electro and Harry both have what the other lacks. It was all motivation and development for Harry, (up to a point) and it was brilliant, but he wasn't able to cut loose; for Electro, his ability to cut loose and embrace the insanity so confidently was his storyline's saving grace.

Other fun but less involved additions to the cast include Chris Cooper as Norman Osbourne, Paul Giamatti obviously having fun as a crazy Russian who loves crashing into things, Felicity Jones as a sly young lady named Felicia. And I happily assume the latter will be showing her face again. And apparently B.J. Novak's small part was a comic villain as well. I wonder if number three will be even more baddie-packed than this one. They might just be able to get away with it; they managed the number in this one unexpectedly well.

(Major Spoilers!)
A certain person's dying was sadly not very sad, even though I didn't expect it to really happen. I'm mostly just surprised because of the great chemistry Gwen and Peter had, and I wonder how the void will fill with her gone. (Maybe they'll let Shailene Woodley be Mary Jane after all.) The foreshadowing was so obvious that I figured it was just a big bluff to mess with us, so the whole scene went by before I believed it, and by then it was too late to be moved. So it was my bad, not the film's. A sucker punch would've perhaps been more effective at manipulating emotions, but honestly the better way was the way we witnessed -- contrived, but the considerate, tasteful way.
(End spoilers)

Wow, I haven't put any pics of the suit yet. So here we go.

The movie pops and sparkles (sometimes literally when Electro's on screen) with superpowered effects as Spidey swings and fights and saves people at the last second with the flashiest style we've seen yet. If any movies should be in 3D, it's these ones. And the way they show off the Spidey-sense -- with slow-motion, showing us what he sees in a split second, then going back and letting us see how he handles it -- I enjoyed that very much, particularly the first time it happens.

It was pretty jumbled at times, like debris was flying around and falling into random scenes trying to pull it all together, but really it didn't bother me. It was fun that way; it felt upbeat that way; and even though it was too long, it didn't feel too long. And I have to think to remember flaws instead of them sticking out obviously. It stands alone capably, has enough heart for a superhero movie, is full of talented, entertaining performances, and does what it's meant to do. I'm surprised to say this, but it is more its own, and therefore better than the first one. Color me... pleasantly shocked. So, when's the third one coming?

One more for good measure, and because it's a fun one.

Like Crazy

It's a classic tale: boy meets girl, boy and girl fall in love, boy and girl's complete lack of self-control, and overwhelming need of controlling selfishness causes them to be separated, and puts their relationship on a rocky, one and a half hour melodramatic ride.

Anton Yelchin and Felicity Jones two great actors, and two of three reasons why I watched this movie.

Anna (Felicity Jones) is British, in L.A. to go to college, where she meets Jacob (Anton Yelchin). They fall in love. They cuddle a lot. He, a furniture designer, makes her a chair. She, a writer, writes him poems. They would be "that couple" whose PDA makes everyone else around them uncomfortable -- if they ever hung out with anyone else. (PG-13 level inappropriate content is infused throughout the movie, as you may expect.) And then they graduate, and she has to go back to England. Except they cannot bear to be separated, so, she doesn't. She stays with him all summer, until she flies over for a week and her friend's wedding, and then flies straight back. And that's when those pesky customs people won't let her through security because she overstayed her visa last time. Whoops. Cue many lingering shots of two depressed, lonely faces, thousands of miles apart.

The fact that they're sitting apart in this picture is nothing short of miracle. They were like magnets.

Of course the movie isn't the two of them pining for each other the whole time -- although sometimes it seems like it is. I took it all as a cautionary tale; a list of things you should not do once you found the person you think you're going to spend the rest of your life with. In fact I'm having a hard time thinking of anything these two did right. Their selfishness and impatience caused nothing but heartache (for more than themselves I may add) and it was a little unsettling, because it was so realistic.

And that unsettling, realistic feeling, for better or for worse, was enhanced greatly the performances. Both the characters seem like really nice, likeable people. They're actually likeable throughout the movie, though they do many dis-likeable things. The acting really is very good, and without Yelchin and Jones playing the characters, I probably wouldn't have managed to watch the whole thing (actually I wouldn't have started it in the first place). Oh, and there's also Jennifer Lawrence in a small portion of the movie. Now you know all three reasons why I wanted to see this. And because of those three, I don't regret seeing it either -- if they didn't make it enjoyable in a happy sense of the word, they at least made it interesting, and very, very well acted.

Just because my choices of pictures imply it, there were actually very few scenes on the beach... everything else these photos imply is accurate.

And I guess it's not completely unthinkable that this may be enjoyable as a romance for someone, I mean there's lots of romance -- shallow, sappy, selfish romance, but people do seem to like that occasionally; look at Romeo and Juliet. Less people die in Like Crazy, so I guess that's good for them, but then again, Romeo and Juliet is considerably more poetic, and a Shakespeare classic, so really there's no point in comparing them... except to prove that Like Crazy is supposed to be a romance, and I think that's done. Moving on.

Actually I guess that's it. This movie was very successful and making not much content be interesting with character study; teaches a lesson that I already knew, but teaches it very well anyway; and was made with thoughtfulness, and just as much care as its characters were careless. And while it's by no means a feel-good romantic movie, I wouldn't say either that it was at all bad -- artistically at least. And I finally understand the title (I thought I did before, but I actually do now) because those two kids were, like, crazy.

Upcoming Movie Roundup - May

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


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




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




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




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



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