Bumblebee

Mild spoilers.

BUMBLEBEE. (As Optimus would say.) Set in the late 80's this is the origin story of the best Transformer character, and how the group of Transformers established their base on Earth. The main character is 18-year-old Charlie (Hailee Steinfeld) and the movie is essentially what you might imagine if someone attempted to combine Michael Bay with John Hughes.

Directed by Travis Knight. He brings genuine sweetness to this bizarre friendship. Better writing and this could've been a top film.

From moment one I was wowed by two things: First how unmistakably EIGHTIES it looks. The first shot is of a city on the Transformer home planet of Cybertron, and that's not something that's necessarily 80's, so how loudly it screamed 80's made me extremely happy as a fan of the era. The only thing that really fails the 80's tone is the characters, but I'll get to that. I was pleased as punch by the song choices and the fashion, and even the plot took some cues from fare of the era. Yes, they played Tears for Fears' most known song, but they played Tears for Fears. And The Smiths. And Take On Me by Aha. I was all for it.

The second thing to wow me was the design of the Transformers. They are much simpler and more clearly visible than the shiny mess they are in the Bay films. They're distinct, recognizable, and still fit in with the other movies. When they transform it gives you the impression that you can almost tell how the mechanics work, and when they fight each other you can tell who's who. The next best choice the movie made is to have the main conflict of the story be only between Bee and two Decepticons. No huge mishmash or trying vainly to figure out what "that one's" name is (though there's plenty cameos for the fans). I also appreciated how Bumblebee himself was the MacGuffin. He's the thing everyone's looking for, AND an actual character at the same time.

Haha I just saw that Dylan O'Brien voices Bee (for the brief time he has a voice) I KNEW he sounded familiar!

From there, things spiral down a bit. I get the appeal of the Bay films; nothing looks like them, and certainly not this, as nice as it looks. But while this flick finds satisfactory replacements for "the Bay" in the look by setting it in the 80's, it also seeks to be a coming-of-age teen flick in the style of John Hughes -- most obviously, specifically Sixteen Candles -- and in that, it seems oddly misguided and distracted by what it must perceive to be modern boxes to tick. The tirade that is to proceed may seem a bit like nit-picking, but it really does bring the movie down a notch or two with its sadly degrading persistence.

Charlie is quite a good character and her tom-boyishness makes her fit into the world of fighting-robots-that-can-turn-into-cars excellently. She's likable and easy to cheer for but has a nice, frustrated edge. Literally every character that surrounds her is a degradation. Her oblivious mom, her idiot of a step-father, a brat brother, and worst of all, a neighbor who has crush: Memo (Jorge Lendeborg Jr.) Today, a geek is the coolest thing you can be, but you'd never know it watching this pathetic excuse for a character. Beta-male, stumbling over himself, completely accepting of his position on the absolute bottom of the food chain. Think Anthony Michael Hall in Sixteen Candles but with no self-confidence and never tries.

She's so effortlessly The Best™.

It was as if they had a good side-kick character written, but because GIRLS can't lead movie or something, they had to destroy him, to be sure he never overshadows her. Dumb, because Hailee Steinfeld won't even let the likes of Jeff Bridges overshadow her. I honestly can't remember anything helpful this kid does. Several times they make it a joke how useless he is. It isn't funny, and he drags Hailee down with him. Weirdly, there's a "hot dude" that she interacts with a couple times (think Jake of Sixteen Candles) but I could never figure if we were supposed to like him or not. He hangs out with the Mean Girls, but seems a friendly guy when he talks to Charlie.

Instead of the story pursuing this guy as romantic interest on the side (as cliche as it might be, it matches the 80's theme perfectly) it stubbornly shoehorns in Memo at every opportunity, only to sideline him for a laugh. The actor seemed perfectly capable of playing a fun, cool geek in the same vein, but the script goes out of its way to emasculate him and turn him into a useless, irritating punchline. And while he's clearly interested in Charlie, she friendzones him brutally. I'm all for a good friendship, but they set up romance here; only to swat it away when payoff time came.

Looking at him you wouldn't think it, right? He looks cool. They should've cast a more waify actor, OR let this guy be normal! (Or cut him completely!)

Speaking of payoff, both Charlie and Bee have these moments where things built up in their characters come to fruition. Normal character arc stuff, you know? Bee's is a cute running joke that pays off into a surprisingly sweet moment; and Charlie's is an issue she struggles with the whole film, that lends her a lot of character depth and feels very unique in itself and I was compelled easily by it -- until the payoff moment, when it becomes completely irrelevant to the plot and feels weirdly anti-climactic. I still appreciate its inclusion, but it was disappointing that they couldn't find a better way to bring it back around.

Action was pretty good. The opening sequences were super engaging, but I did find myself zoning out during some of the later fights. Still they were staged sensibly and don't forget to bring emotional weight to the battle. Overall an excellent time at the theater, but I was surprised how hard the awful side characters hit the bottom line. They distracted me from the good, and there's a lot of good. Hailee Steinfeld has real chemistry with a CGI robot and it's genuinely sweet. The movie has a lot of fun with its 80's setting, and the plot holds together to the end, despite boring side scenes featuring villains and John Cena (who's actually the third best character to Charlie and Bee).

Because of them the movie shines.

I wish they'd given the side characters a bit more TLC and ultimate likability, or else just cut them altogether and focused more on Charlie and Bee's wonderful dynamic. When they're together the movie clicks, and in those moments, the Michael Bay and John Hughes amalgamation works unexpectedly well. Bumblebee, even at the disadvantage of occasional misguided writing, is still easily the best of the Transformer franchise. So far; the door is now open wide for better things to follow.

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse

Spoiler-free!

Ever since Tobey Maguire, we've seen plenty of silver screen iterations of Peter Parker. Time to give Miles Morales a place in the spotlight. He sure does make it shine.

In a movie that could easily be overstuffed and distracted, it all serves to help him along his way.

Plot, premise -- whatever. It's a tale as old as time, really, and you know it already. There's Miles. (Shameik Moore) He becomes Spider-Man. Through related circumstances, other Spider-Men/Women/Beings accidentally get pulled into and trapped in his universe. They need to get back. Spider-Man is the only one who can get them back. And Miles Morales is the one-and-only Spider-Man!

Somehow I didn't expect this to be an origin story. Not sure why, as in retrospect it's obvious. But while it is an origin story for Miles in the sense that when the movie begins he's not Spider-Man and when it ends he is, it does away with the dragging feeling of a typical origin tale by doing away with one thing. See, the main restriction of origins like Spidey is that they're lonely. The hero randomly obtains these incredible powers, and has no one to tell. No one to confide in. No one to give clear advice. So, he flounders by himself. It's natural, and it's not like it doesn't work as a story. It can be and has been compelling. Many, many, many times. Time for a fresh angle.

Like a super strange mentor situation maybe...

Enter Peter Parker (Jake Johnson), Gwen Stacy (Hailee Steinfeld), Spider-Man Noir (Nicholas Cage), Spider-Ham (John Mulaney), and Peni Parker (Kimiko Glenn). It may sound complicated but no worries. The first is the classic Spidey, just older and a bit washed up. Then, naturally, Spider-Woman. The noir one exists in edgy black and white newsprint and wears a fedora, the next is a cartoon pig (self-explanatory if you ask me), and finally the anime version with a cute little girl and her pet spider. They're what drive Miles to truly becoming Spider-Man -- in that if he doesn't, they can't get home, and they're there to instruct and advise. There is still floundering, and loneliness to deal with too, but it all hits so much harder when it's sudden, and not par-for-the-course.

It only felt like an origin it the obligatory power-manifestation scene (which was unusually funny; it's usually just cringe to me) and then near the end for a moment. In between it could've any other day of the week, of missions and plots and action/adventuring. Miles spends a lot of time sans webslingers. A great choice because the lessened ability made for higher stakes. And he wears a Spider-Man Halloween costume. No, I'm not kidding. There were moments I wished he'd get a real suit already, but once he did, I understood why they delayed it so long. Well, besides thematically. The personality comes through so much better in the pieced-together, home-spun suit, it really does. And Miles is not a character you want to hide.

Plus, the long-awaited suit reveal moment was spectacular. (Or should I say "ultimate"?)

Anyway, the movie very respectfully but very firmly sidelines the side-Spider-Beings. If you're worried the movie might be crowded with them, don't be. They appear when they're useful and don't hog the scenery. If Spider-Ham isn't doing something worth looking at, you don't see him. Plain and simple. And there's a definite hierarchy of importance with these characters. Miles is number one. Always and forever, and the movie never forgets it. Peter is next, then Gwen. They have arcs. The rest get solid moments to shine. The temptation to overuse Spider-Ham had to be huge, but they never do. This is Miles' movie, and boy is it Miles' movie.

He's instantly established as the every-kid type, with his own passions (street art and music), his own issues that would seem big for a normal kid (being transferred to a boarding prep school) and complex relationships. He has no annoying-level problems with his dad (Brian Tyree Henry), but there's enough tension between them to be important as the plot rolls on. And he admires his maybe-not-so-great-but-definitely-very-cool uncle (Mahershala Ali). He's also enough of a dork to consider the friend-zone a fine place to be, and I think that's just too cute. Fact is, you care about this kid from the get-go, and from there it's only up.

Gwen is so extra. She has ballet shoes, and they're teal, AND they're point shoes, AND she USES them!

The voice performance by Shameik Moore is infused with teenage innocence and pathos to remarkable levels. To the point where I was shocked at how relatively inexperienced an actor he is. I took him for a long-time professional voice actor. Jake Johnson also is remarkable. He hits the comedy and the genuine drama equally well. Zoë Kravitz is Mary Jane. Liev Schreiber plays Kingpin. Chris Pine is there for a hot second. I mean -- Nicholas Cage! As a hard-boiled Spider-detective! There's not a bad performance in the lot -- whether for pitch-perfect comic delivery, or heart-breaking drama, or both together -- and since I don't have space to individually praise everyone who left an impression, I'll have to leave it at that.

Animation style is the big thing that sets this film apart. Without it, it would feel fairly typical, and even cheesy if they kept the filming style. It was a risk -- the thing that had most potential to put off viewers. Its goal was to maintain a comic-book look. There are print dots and hashing in the bright, comic-y colors. The motion is sometimes visibly choppy, like the movie's running at a slow frame-rate. (Much like The Lego Movie, for comparison.) And there's sometimes panels and split-screens. Miles' thoughts even translate to thought boxes for one sequence. In my opinion, it not only works -- it's the thing that makes the movie. I'm a firm believer in a movie's style matching the style of it's main character, and they nailed it here.

Even without the stylistic flair the animation is wonderful. Those expressions and character designs!

I couldn't ask for more. Grand, colorful, peppy and powerful in turn, uproariously hilarious beyond expectation, with gleefully involving characters and a plot line that doesn't feel stretched thin in this comic-book-movie world. Yes, this movie may be one of many, but like it's new-to-the-team hero, it plays it like it's the one-and-only. I could have happily existed in that crisp, splashy, and moving little universe for another adventure, or two, or five. So, welcome to the team, one-and-only Spider-Man!

Upcoming Movie Roundup - December

Unexpectedly, I only saw two new movies in November --  Overlord (review) was brisk, splashy, weird and violent, and Buster Scruggs (review) was darkly hilarious, hauntingly memorable, and also kinda violent. Both excellent films. I also saw The Night Eats the World (review) which came out back in July, and it was also excellent; fascinating, and thought-provoking.

Otherwise, November was a bit disappointing on the blockbuster front. I thought for sure I'd see Robin Hood, but after it got universally slammed we figured it'd be more fun to wait until we can stream it and make fun of it without bothering people. And it was almost the same deal with Fantastic Beasts 2. Ralph Breaks the Internet still looks good, and Green Book. I'm actually feeling a need for a solid, big, blockbuster. So good thing December potentially has four of them, right?

But, it's also Oscar season. I'm not very big on Oscar season. Sometimes awards can urge me to watch movies I had no interest in before, but mostly it just annoys me because of how many movies seem to only exist to try to bait awards. Like there's suddenly this bothersome disconnect between art in film and entertainment in film; there are films made to be seen and loved by people, and films made to be rewarded by faceless arbiters, and they only intersect occasionally. And only, it seems, at this time of year.

I don't want to rain on people's parade, I'm just saying this as a kind of disclaimer, because I find that most of the year I'm more interested arty than I am now, because they reek of Oscar-bait, whether they're meant to or not. It automatically lessens my interest, and I'm aware of how biased that is, so I'm putting it out there, so that when I talk cynically about a movie that may not deserve it, you'll know where I'm coming from and can judge for yourself.

Disclaimer/rant/TED talk over. Let's get to the trailers!


Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle
Dec 7th(Netflix); PG-13
Well this one's definitely not gonna be getting awards. Andy Serkis' directorial debut is a new version of The Jungle Book, that, as far as I can tell, doesn't go back to the book for source but still is trying to compete with Jon Favreau's remake, even though it came out two years ago. Serkis does have a good cast -- himself, Christian Bale, Cate Blanchett, Benedict Cumberbatch, Tom Hollander, Naomi Harris, (and more!) and it focuses a bit more on the humans, which is a good idea imo, since it's a live-action movie. Who knows how it's executed. Kinda seems like the plot ventures into a tired "animals vs man" direction. I still haven't seen Favreau's, so maybe I'll get to both of them this month and see who wins the competition!




Mary Queen of Scotts
Dec 7th(limited); R
This one's ideal bait for the Oscars and has been building hype all year. Saoirse Ronan and Margot Robbie, with support from the likes of Guy Pearce, David Tennant and Jack Lowden. It's a period drama so there's costumes and locations a great need for excellent cinematography, and history so the roles are a meaty challenge. It can even sneak a little modern politics in there! I'd like to see it someday because I'm a fan of the cast, but it's not urgent.




Vox Lux
Dec 7th(limited) R
Looks like Natalie Portman is out for another Oscar. She has one, right? *research* Yes. I'd be crazy to deny that she has skill, and she clearly puts a ton of effort into her roles, but I've always been neutral toward her at best. For complicated reasons but I think the short version is she tries too hard. Everything she does feels forced to me. Anyway that's all to say that this movie looks fine. Actually I wouldn't mind watching it at all, but mostly out of curiosity because I have no idea what the plot is, and the visual look is kinda fascinating.




Ben is Back
Dec 7th(limited) R
Seems like a very solid drama, but watching the trailer was just making me feel dread about the plot. I bet Lucas Hedges and Julia Roberts put in some fine performances, and I bet if I watched it I'd enjoy or at least appreciate it, but, I think (cynically I know) it'll probably just fall through the cracks.




Dumplin'
Dec 7th(Netflix); PG-13
Kay, see, this looks super silly, but because it's going to be on Netflix I'll probably watch it instantly and have a fun time. That's it. That's all I have to say. (Has Netflix become the new and improved Disney Channel??)




Once Upon a Deadpool
Dec 12th; PG-13!
I was fine with the content level of the original version of Deadpool 2, but since this re-edit has added scenes and Fred Savage it might be worth checking out. I guess that's exactly the point, isn't it? Make it PG-13 so kids can see it; make new scenes so everyone else will see it again! But I can't imagine it being better than the original version. Unless the new scenes are downright spectacular to make me not miss what they cut out. For me, rated R for violence in Deadpool is pretty necessary, (I guess we'll find out how necessary!) and the language occasionally helped with the humor. Occasionally.




Spider-Man Into the Spider-Verse
Dec 14th; PG
I can't even watch this trailer without grinning. When I first heard about this movie I dismissed it, thinking because it's animated it was for extreme fans, or part of a series or something. Of course, the second I finally saw the trailer my head exploded, and it became one of my most anticipated movies of the year! I can only imagine it knocking my socks off and I can't wait for it to happen -- it looks so beautiful, with the colors the animation style, and there's a real plot, and personal stakes, but it's not all revealed in the trailer so there's intrigue. If it's somehow not good, it's going to break my heart because I've completely forgotten how to be cautious and I have sky-high expectations. Can't wait to see it!




Mortal Engines
Dec 14th; PG-13
Peter Jackson takes on steampunk fantasy, and I wish he'd forgotten about The Hobbit and got to this sooner! It doesn't have me fully confident in its quality, but I am totally confident in that I'll enjoy it no matter what, because this is exactly my deal. I hope it'll reach the heights I imagine it's capable of, but I can't imagine not a having a blast in the theater even with flaws. I'm already a fan of Robert Sheehan and I really like the look of the lead girl Hera Hilmar, and then we have Hugo Weaving as the villain. It looks beautiful and spectacularly designed; it looks like a high-flying classic adventure plot; I can't wait to see it, even if it's made solely for me!




The Mule
Dec 14th(limited); R
Because it's a Clint Eastwood movie should I just trust that it's good and ignore that it seems like there's no way the story ends happily? I mean, it can end not happy and still be good. I don't know how, but I guess Clint Eastwood does. Somehow the idea of Bradley Cooper and Michael Pena being cop partners is very appealing to me though.




Mary Poppins Returns
Dec 19th; PG
Since the original wasn't animated, this Disney classic gets the soft-reboot-in-the-form-of-a-sequel treatment instead. I want to be okay with this movie. I want to enjoy Emily Blunt (she is charm itself) and Lin-Manuel Miranda, and the new songs, and the homage it pays to the original. But the cynic in me doubts that it's homage at all, but perhaps just banking (ha!) off the original. I hope it's not just a rehash and finds justification for it's existence, but unfortunately, the only way to know for sure is to watch it. And I only want to watch it if it is worthy on it's own merit. If Michael has the exact same arc as Mr. Banks in the original (which seems very likely) I may have to get annoyed, no matter how magical Emily Blunt is.




Bird Box
Dec 21st(Netflix); NR
So I'm definitely not the first person to say this, but hear me out: A Quiet Place, but with sight. It's a Netflix release and it's got Sandra Bullock instead of Emily Blunt so I seriously doubt it'll be as good (I do like Bullock sometimes I promise), but hopefully it's not actually as similar as it seems. It's Netflix so chances of my giving it a chance are pretty high, but there's not much interest there at all. I dunno, it's just not intriguing me. Except: why is it called Bird Box?




Aquaman
Dec 21st; PG-13
Who even cares at this point? Either it'll be the worst thing the DCEU puts out, or the best, or somewhere in between. I'm going to see it anyway, so I'll let you know. I've recently become a bit of a fan of Patrick Wilson (the Conjuring movies can take credit, so that's bonus points for James Wan too) so I'm kind of looking forward to him being the bad guy (at least it's not an animated bad guy haha right??) and I think it's funny how much like The Little Mermaid everything seems. Honestly, I seriously doubt it'll be the worst DCEU offering, but I do kinda expect to be disappointed. Also, underwater scenes in movies make me extremely uncomfortable. So. I expect to be uncomfortable.

Bumblebee
Dec 21st; PG-13

Well it's set in the late 80's, so how bad could it actually be? They finally scaled back on a Transformer movie, getting the main focus down to two, and they put some style into the trailer, so hopefully that translates to the movie... and already this has a high chance of being my favorite Transformers film. Still, that's not saying much. I feel like this is one I'll wait for steaming on, unless there's a huge positive response or something. Hailee Steinfeld is good... Bumblebee is the best transformer character... it could very easily be a very decent movie.

Holmes and Watson

Dec 25th; PG-13

Like... it looks real bad. But at the same time, it makes fun of the other modern takes on Sherlock Holmes and I just respect it so much for that. It's probably gonna be terrible. I will continue telling myself this in an effort to keep from getting excited about it. Yeah. It's probably going to be terrible. It just... they do all the obvious jokes! And there's Will Ferrell and John C. Reilly, and Ralph Fiennes is Moriarty! And they say modern things but it's set in the proper time! It's so weird! Ugh. I dunno. It's probably going to be terrible. But here's the thing: if it's good it'll be because it just doesn't care, and that's kinda rare these days.

Destroyer
Dec 25th(limited); R
How come Toby Kebbell has second billing but doesn't even appear in the trailer while Sebastian Stan is everywhere but so far down the cast list that I discovered he was in the movie by recognizing him? Anyway, I watch all movies I can find that have Toby Kebbell in them, and I watch all movie I can find that have Sebastian Stand in them. So I guess this will be a case of two birds with one stone. If the movie's good that'll make three! And I don't know, but it looks like it could be good maybe. Not naturally my cup of tea, but it could be. Nicole Kidman stars and is kinda unrecognizable.

Barely Lethal

Fan of teen comedies from the 90's and early 2000's? Wish you could go back and watch your favorites all over again for the first time? Well, you're in luck! Does Hailee Steinfeld have the movie for you!

This one also has guns!

Hailee is Agent 83; an orphan who was raised her whole life by a league of assassins for girls, run by Samuel L. Jackson. 83 is the best of the best, but one lesson never stuck: that she shouldn't form attachments. She discovers movies -- teen rom-coms to be exact -- and falls in love with the idea of living that normal high school life. So when the opportunity rises, she fakes her death and becomes Megan, a Canadian exchange student, finds herself an all-American family, and an all-American high school. One problem: her idea of a "normal high school life?" Not even close to reality.

The really funny part is that this movie's version of reality, which has none of the cliches she imagined she'd experience, has all the cliches from the movies where she got all her wrong ideas! It's quite the fun circle of cliches. I think almost everything that happens in this flick is borrowing from some classic (or at least popular) teen flick. Clueless is blatantly (and also subtly) copied. Mean Girls has its moments; Pretty in Pink; the 10 Things I Hate About You one is pretty obvious. Also I want to say, Paper Towns? Although did the cliche of two drunk people suddenly understanding each other whilst hanging out in a bathtub at a party originate there? Anyway, this movie handled the scene way better than the film version of Paper Towns, so... that might be awkward.

It's an eternal circle of cliches, where you can have your fun and laugh at it too!

Besides Hailee and Mr. Jackson, we have the villainess, Jessica Alba, and 83's co-worker (rival assassin) is Sophie Turner. Megan's all-American family includes the typical loner girl who just needs a good friend -- Dove Cameron. At the school there's the hot guy who's in a band (Toby Sebastian), the foul-mouthed dude bro (Gabriel Basso), the mean girl (Alexandra Krosney), and even the teacher who tries too hard to be cool (Dan Fogler). But most importantly there's the unassuming guy who has a heart of gold -- Thomas Mann. Once the film introduced all the characters, I hoped out loud that the movie would be as predictable as I was thinking it'd be, and I'm happy to report that it was.

You might think that a movie that relies completely of the cliches of other films would be trite and irritating, but honestly its connection to those films is where it shines; freshened up by the extra layer of pointing out the cliches, then twisting and having fun with them. There's an original side with the assassin aspect, but the film stumbles most noticeably when it focuses on that. It's a neat idea and understandably you'd want to put time into it; it was just too separated from the rest of the fun. The writing all-around is much smarter than your average teen comedy, and truly funny in plenty of places. They use puns. And I appreciated them! It works because attention is given to character, then characters make jokes that fit them but aren't necessarily funny on their own -- making them funny with personality and circumstances.

*Holding a stalk of corn* "I think you're a-MAIZE-ing." "That's pretty corny..."

The brunt of the film's weight falls on Steinfeld, and it shows. Megan is a classic teen heroine and certainly entertaining, but is also on screen all the time, and for some reason doesn't bring the comedy like some of her cast-mates can. She brings it more naturally on the realistic, straight-forward drama side; in the "awkwardly funny" and some of the fish-out-of-water bits, she's more awkward than I think she was meant to. Thomas Mann is ideal for his part (as he commonly seems to be) with his goofy charm and natural sincerity. He was one of few who had scenes without Steinfeld, and he could've had more. Dove Cameron started out boringly and ending up great, which was fitting, and Gabriel Basso continues to impress with his diverse role choices and consistent charm. Sophie Turner is also a fun character.

Cute homecoming pic gets a bit awkward when both your boyfriends are there...

So you can't exactly say its original, and it's not like teen rom-coms are typically a high standard for movie excellence... or even romance excellence... or comedic excellence... or much of any kind of excellence, really. The mere fact that Barely Lethal makes itself memorable by being funny, having characters that are a smidge more interesting that you'd expect, and half-way riding the coattails of other flicks that have risen above expectations is more than enough to earn a recommendation, a passing grade, and a license to kill -- but just barely on that last one.

Upcoming Movie Roundup - February

January saw no surprises, and I was so busy that I didn't even get out to a third Star Wars viewing! I enjoyed Sherlock: The Abominable Bride at home, and am currently enjoying Agent Carter's second season. February has a few movies to talk about and a few movies I'd like to see at home sometime, but it seems that I can just copy and paste my theater plans from last month: if I go to the theater, it'll probably be for The Force Awakens. And that's fine by me!

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies
Feb 5th; PG-13
Ugh, I feel like such a bad Jane Austen fan for even mentioning this. But look: I love Jane Austen. I love zombies. I have already seen many Austen-knock-off movies (Lost in Austen, Jane Austen Book Club, Austenland, etc.) and they were all their very own special brand of terrible. Some more so than others. If I were to not watch this movie, it would be because I'm be afraid that it would ruin my enjoyment of the good, 1995 P&P. But I've already been subjected to all those knock-offs, and the 2005 P&P, which didn't ruin the other one, and how much worse could it be with zombies? Not much -- at least there's no Keira Knightley! It might be dumb and terrible and disrespectful, but it'll also have zombies, so it's not supposed to be taken seriously. Plus, it's got Lily James! And Matt Smith! And Sam Riley! (And wow, I'm actually kinda sad this isn't just a regular P&P adaptation...) So that's my explanation for this next sentence: I want to see this movie. Help.




Hail, Caesar!
Feb 5th; PG-13
WELL -- the Coen Brother's new movie looks like a win! (It's got a comma and an exclamation point in its title, so you know it's gonna be good!) This trailer is downright brilliant, and I would watch it if the whole movie was like that even without a plot. The Coens always seem to be doing something new, and totally out-of-the-box, and this one fits the bill more than ever. It even almost feels like a Wes Anderson film from the trailer, though with a distinctly Coen's sense of humor. This total oddball throws back to Hollywood's Golden Age, and follows around a Hollywood "Fixer" (Josh Brolin) as he... fixes.... things.... ... The whole cast is absolutely giant -- George Clooney, Ralph Fiennes, Tilda Swinton, Scarlett Johansson, Canning Tatum, Jonah Hill... It doesn't really matter to me whether the movie is generally considered bad or good. I want to see it. That cast, those directors, the 50's, Hollywood -- I just must see it. But, if I were to venture a guess, I would think it'd certainly be on the good side.




The Choice
Feb 5th; PG-13
Okay, anyone who knows me know that I am not in any way a Nicholas Sparks fan. But, anyone who knows me well knows that I surprisingly often watch movies based on his novels anyway. When it comes to sappy romantic drama, there is nothing better. And I really do meant that; these movies are tear-jerking, squishy, cheesy cry-fests, but they are of a very high quality. So high, in fact, that actors I like very often get cast in them. Like this one, for instance, stars Teresa Palmer of Warm Bodies and Benjamin Walker of Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. The zombie killer and the vampire killer come together for a little Southern romance. Nicholas Sparks or not, that's interesting enough -- maybe even if someone winds up dead! Maybe.




Deadpool
Feb 12th; R
[Rant] Not watching Deadpool will probably be one of the most disappointing moments in my movie-watching career. I love Deadpool. When I saw X-Men Origins: Wolverine I didn't even know who he was, but since this movie became a thing I've looking into him and found out more about him than any other superhero yet. The strips he's in are absolutely hilarious, and his powers are brilliantly gory. But this movie... I guess I knew from the first trailer when I actually had to specify "green band trailer" in order to find the appropriate one, but this movie goes beyond what I'll allow myself to watch, and in fact, what I want to watch. It's rated R. No duh. But let me break it down: Violence -- okay, that's good. Deadpool would probably be terrible without R violence. Language -- "language throughout" specifically. That'll be about 100 f-bombs. Whew. I can brave language, but even then it usually detracts from the movie. All I see here is 100 times someone could have said something original. Sexual content -- yep, can I just ask, WHY? Why does the movie need this? Answer: it actually doesn't. And here's the real kicker: Graphic nudity -- that takes the cake. And that brings me to my point which encapsulates the whole problem I have with this movie. This movie is not out to make a good, fun, original Deadpool movie. It's all about the shock and awe. It wants to push the envelope as far over the edge of edginess as it will go, and see how many fans eat it up like so much grocery store birthday cake. If I'm right about this movie, it won't be funny, it won't be original, and it certainly won't be well-acted, but if I'm right, everyone will still believe it is. If you're excited for this movie and plan to see it (and if you see it and love it) I'm sorry to be so harsh, but I've thought on this subject a lot and have some pretty passionate opinions about it. I'm just really disappointed right now. [/rant]




Gods of Egypt
Feb 26th; PG-13
Huge monsters. Ancient heroes. Cheesy, low quality dialogue, and gobs and gobs of visual effects that aren't-really-that-impressive. It looks like the new class of Clash of the Titans is here! Which means it'll probably be a fun popcorn watch, but I would never pay to see it. But, since it also has Rufus Sewell in it, I'll watch it as soon as I can for free.



How's the month of February looking for you?

5 Female Characters Tag

Rules

1.) List 5 of your favorite female characters (book or screen).

2.) Tagging other people is optional

3.) If you are tagged link back to the person that tagged you.

4.) Link back to Revealed In Time

Choose one character from each category:

1.) Protagonist

2.) Villain

3.) Superhero

4.) That I would want to be friends with

5.) That I wish had better development

Thanks to Ivy Miranda of Revealed In Time for tagging me for this! I had a lot of fun deciding on and writing about these ladies.

Protagonist:

Mattie Ross

Played by Hailee Steinfeld

In True Grit

This goes for the book Mattie too, but to me Steinfeld's portrayal of her was so close to perfection that the two are pretty much indistinguishable. What I love about Mattie is her no-nonsense attitude and tightly focused attentions. She has one goal for the whole story, and will not be pulled off into rabbit trails or be otherwise dissuaded from pushing stubbornly on towards that goal. She is extremely mature for her age in some ways, but in others is embarrassingly naive. Like all great protagonist, she is brave and kind. She is very guarded, but with the few glimpses we get into her heart, we can see that it is full and deep. Though she is not a traditional protagonist you'd expect out of a fourteen-year-old girl, nor the traditional protagonist of a western tale, she is easy to understand, and easy to love and cheer for.

Villain:

Daisy Buchanan

Played by Carey Mulligan

In The Great Gatsby

(Spoilers) It's a strong word to call her, but one of the main principles I base my love of The Great Gatsby on is that Daisy is its villain -- not Tom Buchanan, nor George Wilson. Daisy on the surface is a beautiful, alluring woman who is good at making people like her, and making it seem effortless. Underneath, she is as cold and as selfish as they come. She lets Jay destroy himself in his pursuit of her without a care. She is the indirect cause of his death (and the direct cause of Myrtle's) but never confesses and even never appears to feel remorse. As Fitzgerald says about her and Tom, "...they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness..." Only Tom was misled. Daisy knew everything, and everything that she was doing, and she did it all anyway. She is incredibly fascinating to me. Carey Mulligan in the 2013 adaptation makes a fantastic effort of portraying her villainous complexities, but the character wasn't written for the screen properly, and doesn't reach the heights of the Fitzgerald's Daisy.

Superhero

Natasha Romanoff

Played by Scarlett Johansson

In Iron Man 2, The Avengers, The Winter Solider, and Age of Ultron

She doesn't exactly have superpowers, but she is still absolutely a superhero. After appearing in four movies she collected an impressive amount of development, doing a great job in overcoming her exclusively eye-candy role in Iron Man 2, and with her last film landed solidly at the top of my favorite female superheroes. Her Winter Soldier version gives her lots of likability and normality, but Joss Whedon's version of her is my favorite -- she's like a femme fatale, playing the bad guys with smooth elegance, and you're never quite sure if that heart on her sleeve is the real one or not. I love that she has moments of yearning for a family, but is too loyal to her job of saving the world to abandon it to satisfy those desires. I love her graceful, no nonsense hand-to-hand fighting style, and I adore that she can handle herself with all the guys, but still acts like a lady.

That I would want to be friends with:

Katniss Everdeen

Played by Jennifer Lawrence

In The Hunger Games, Catching Fire, and Mockingjay

I know. It's a strange pick. Katniss is basically the complete opposite of everything you'd associate with being friendly. She even says of herself that she's not good at making friends. I don't doubt that if I lived in her world and we had a chance at being friends that it wouldn't actually happen, but we're using hypothetical's here, and the word "want." Aside from my low chances of hypothetically getting into the affections of the great Miss Everdeen, the fact is that Katniss is one of the best people anyone could ever be friends with. Think of the people she is friends with, and how devotedly loyal she is to every single one. She may not come to care for a person easily, but once she does she cares with every last drop she has to give. Plus, I like to imagine that we'd get along. She's a very open and honest person with her friends, and if someone is honest with me, I find it easy to follow suit. And honesty without fear of losing the friendship is an amazing thing.

That I wish I had better development:

Tauriel

Played by Evangeline Lily

In The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, and The Battle of the Five Armies

This was definitely the hardest category for me, because when I think a character has bad development, I automatically don't like them. I chose Tauriel, because I wanted to like her. I really, really, did. And some of the time I was able to. Evangeline Lily made her charming and sincere in her way, and really good at destroying orcs with style. But the hints at her romance with Legolas were weird; and her full-on romance with Kili even more so. Even her relationship with Thranduil was odd. She simply did not feel like a true Middle-Earth lady. She only served as ways and means of developing other characters, moving the plot along, and expanding the run time. Too bad, but even so annoyingly developed as she was, she wasn't distractingly bad, because the movies often matched her level pretty well.

I will tag:
Lizzie
Rissi 
Hamlette
Olivia 

And since tagging is optional, I'm sure that "stealing" is encouraged, so if you want to do it -- please do!

Ender's Game

This is a spoiler-free review.

Based on the thought-provoking kids' 1985 sci-fi novel by Orson Scott Card, Ender's Game falls into one of the most common category of flaws for book to movie adaptations; length. Two hours is not enough time to flawlessly translate the entire story, but with all the time in the world, it may still have fallen short of being as compelling as the book itself. While attempting an exact copy of the book, director Gavin Hood never risks adding the unique personality the film deserves.

Asa Butterfield is the young protagonist, Ender Wiggin, brilliant, calculating, loner, literally bred to be the means of saving the Earth from impending alien invasion. The one thing I was confident about this movie was that Butterfield was the perfect choice for the inverted character, and I was not a bit wrong. His portrayal is a near exact match to the book's, and he is (not surprisingly) the most developed and memorable character -- a solid lead, and a good reason to watch this story as well as read.

The rest of the characters make less of an impression. The acting level as a whole is nowhere close to bad, but there was no engaging spark. I hardly even noticed that Harrison Ford was even there his character was so generic. Ben Kingsly was better, but had less screen-time to help out. Typically great actresses Hailee Steinfeld and Abigail Breslin also don't use their usual special brand of charm, and aren't any more memorable than the unknown young actors with equally-sized roles.

Next to nothing was changed from the book, only excluded, so as the plot whizzed by in a paint-by-numbers fashion, many intricacies of the book were glossed over. I was frequently bombarded with the urge to pause the film and explain to my family the details of why something happened, or the thought process behind a decision, or why a particular moment is important. I really missed the sense of time progression, how Ender gradually hones his skills, works hard to get to the top, and redefines the way the games are played. They're only details, but the dimension is lacking without them.

Maybe if they deviated from the original more -- I know, that's a phrase that should never be uttered -- but maybe then they'd have found the freedom to take some creative risks, and not ended up with just a perfect shadow of the edgy, unique tale they were attempting to replicate.

I realize this is less of a movie review and more of a book to movie comparison, but it's hard to separate the two. The best I can say for the film alone is that it was well-cast, with good visuals and sense of intensity and drama, and it conveyed its ideas. As a book adaptation, it's technically flawless besides the time problem, and even somewhat managed to capture the excitement, a bit of the heart, thoughtfulness and the grand and grim cheesiness of the novel. But in the end I was left feeling not wowed, as I was after the book, but mostly just... indifferent.

Ender redefines fight training with the idea that there is no up or down in zero gravity. Ender's Game is a zero gravity story, but this telling, while making a good effort, stubbornly endeavors to only face "up."

Upcoming Movie Roundup -- November

Ender's Game
Nov 1, PG-13
The first of two movies based on books releasing this month that interested me into reading the stories before their movies came out. This one caught my attention with it's cast full of favorites; Asa Butterfield, Harrison Ford, Ben Kingsley, Hailee Steinfeld and Abigail Breslin, and after reading the book (which I recommend -- it was very good) my interest has been holding steady. Since it came out today I already know what critics generally think. They say it's not quite as good as the book, but still faithful to it. So I'll probably enjoy it and forgive any little slip-ups, but I'm hoping the visual side will be spectacular if nothing else. I'm already sure the acting will be great though -- with a cast like that, it could hardly be otherwise. Definitely seeing this. The only question is, "when?"




Thor: The Dark World
Nov 8, PG-13
Finally Loki gets his own movie... What? Never mind that title! Okay, okay, so Chris Hemsworth is still the title hero here. And we all know for sure that the Ninth Doctor, Chrisopher Eccleston is the baddie, Malekith. So the question is, which side will Tom Hiddleston's Loki fall to this time? Mostly I'm just worried he won't make it to the end alive... But, besides my pessimistic fangirly conjecture, this movie is looking great -- visually and scope-wise, several steps above the first, with an intriguing plot (particularly for Loki fans) and promises of lots and lots of action, drama, and comedy. I doubt we'll see anything groundbreaking though... besides Thor's hammer in many cool action sequences that is. Hugely anticipated, absolutely-must-see, and I expect very much to love it.




The Hunger Games: Catching Fire
Nov 22, PG-13
Do I even really need to say anything? This looks crazy good. Crazy. I loved the first one, and I'm prepared to love this one even more. The trailer looks fantastic, breath-taking, and everything seems to be in order for this to be one of the biggest blockbusters of the year. The returning cast led by Jennifer Lawrence promises to be better than ever, and the and the new characters appear to be adapted flawlessly. I have one tiny reservation, and that is Sam Claflin as Finnick... I have yet to be impressed with his acting skills, but, I cannot deny he looks the part, and movies like Pirates 4 and Snow White and the Huntsman aren't exactly where you'd expect to find great acting anyway, so I'm hopeful. All I can do now is wait with anxious excitement. And maybe read the book one more time...




Frozen
Nov 27, PG
This movie reminds me very much of Tangled. Which is what they were going for I'm sure. (The titles are even similar.) So if you've read my review of Tangled you know that I love it, but you'll also know that I had absolutely no desire to see it based on it's horribly boring and stupid first trailer. That's pretty much the case here, except that now that I know the movie will likely be better than the trailer, I'm more willing to reserve judgement. Starring Kristen Bell, with the awesome Idina Menzel and Alan Tudyk, with a plot that mixes Disney Princesses with Narnia (eternal winter anyone?) and cheesiness and apparently a love triangle, (and the strangest "animal" sidekick EVER) it looks almost unbearably silly, but I can still hope this animation flick will follow in Rapunzel's footsteps.




Bonus: Television!

Almost Human
Series Premiere: Nov 4th
One of New Zealand's finest, Karl Urban stars in this new FOX series set in a futuristic world where cop are assigned robots for partners. And Karl is ah... a Renaissance man -- he doesn't like robots, ever since they were the cause of his human partner's death and his own robotic leg. So he gets assigned to a weird one that acts like a regular, emotional human (Michael Ealy). Do you get it? They're both almost human. Since this is a FOX series I'll try to not let myself get too attached, but in my opinion, Karl Urban in a weekly futuristic crime drama is a must-see.
Note: Well, the premiere date was the 4th, but now is pushed back to the 17th (Sun, after football to draw in more viewers) with the next episode in its normal slot on the 18th. They're calling it a "2-night series premiere."




Doctor Who 50th Anniversary Special: The Day of The Doctor
Nov 23rd
Matt Smith and the Eleventh Doctor say "goodbye." David Tennant and Billie Piper say "hello again," (and "did you miss me?" for extra awesome. (Oh, yes.)) and then "goodbye again" as the Tenth Doctor and Rose. And Jenna Coleman as Clara says "hello" to Peter Capaldi as Twelve (hopefully). I don't know what John Hurt is gonna be doing, or saying. And I don't know what the plot is gonna be. But I am way beyond excited. But also way beyond dreading, because Sarah will have to say "goodbye" to her two favorite Doctors at once, and she's not sure she can handle it. She might be going crazy already -- she's talking about herself in the third person...



What are you most excited to see this month?

Upcoming Movie Roundup -- October

October's here already, huh? Well, as predicted, I didn't get to the theater for any movies last month, but I did finally get to see a much anticipated movie that released four months ago... Joss Whedon's Much Ado About Nothing! ...which I will be reviewing soon (whenever I simultaneously have time and inspiration) Anyways, October has more interesting movies than September did in my opinion, but still no absolutely-must-sees. (Just wait 'till November for that!)

Gravity
Oct 4th, PG-13
This space disaster thriller starring George Clooney and Sandra Bullock is already making waves with a current 96% tomatometer on Rottentomates. I think I may be missing something, but I'm wondering what is so amazingly interesting about a movie about two people who get lost in space? Because it's one of the most terrifying things EVER? Or just because it hasn't been done before? At any rate I'm only interested because other people are interested and that's not quite enough interest for now.



Captain Phillips
Oct 11th, PG-13
Based on a book that was based on a true story, Paul Greengrass (Bourne Supremacy and Ultimatum) directs the great Tom Hanks as the title character who has his ship hijacked by pirates. Pirates! This is very interesting to me, and promises to be exciting and well-acted. If the positive reviews keep coming in, I just may have to see this sometime.



Romeo and Juliet
Oct 11th, PG-13
It seems Shakespeare is back in style. And with it, I am becoming a fan, through Tom Hiddleston in The Hollow Crown, and Whedon's presentation of Much Ado. Romeo and Juliet follows in the footsteps, but it's important to have more drawing power for your Shakespeare adaption than just Shakespeare himself, like Hiddleston or Whedon. So what's this one's? Writer, Julian Fellows of Downton Abbey? Or young actress Hailee Steinfeld as Juliet? Steinfeld is certainly the most drawing to me, she is a brilliant actress, but her co-star, Douglas Booth does the opposite. But the cast also boasts Paul Giamatti and Stellan Skarsgård, and then with Steinfeld, and my new appreciation of Shakespeare, I think I must admit I'd like to see this movie.



The Fifth Estate
Oct 18th, R
Benedict Cumberbatch. Would any of us have even heard of this movie if it wasn't for that name? Nevertheless, here I am. Another true story, Cumberbatch stars as Australian Julian Assange, "founder" of a webpage where dirty government secrets are leaked to the world. Daniel Brühl, Dan Stevens, Laura Linney and Anthony Mackie support. The movie trailer asks us to consider whether right or wrong, whether Assange is a hero or traitor, but I worry the film may try to show us the answer. Reviews are very mixed, which boosts my theory, but honestly, if I see this, it will be for Cumberbatch's acting, and not much else.



What movies have caught your interest this month?

Ender's Game -- Trailer

I stumbled across this film while looking at the cast of Iron Man 3, specifically, Ben Kingsley on Rotten Tomatoes. I was intrigued by the inclusion of Asa Butterfield in the cast list, cast for the second time as the title character in a film that also stars Kingsley -- the other being the impressively acted lead in Hugo. As I scrolled through the rest of the cast, I became more and more impressed and intrigued -- Harrison Ford, Hailee Steinfeld, Abigail Breslin, and Viola Davis make up the rest of the big names splashed through the cast.

Butterfield and Kingsley in Scorsese's 2011 film, Hugo. Great movie.

The interest continues to grow. I discovered this science fiction adventure is being adapted from a novel written in the 80's. I researched the book, and (along with many more discoveries I won't mention for time's sake) decided the book could be worth a read. I gave me the impression of being the space version of The Hunger Games, but written before The Hunger Games of course.

That impression came from the fact that the story is basically one kid versus the world. Ender is the kid, molded influenced and manipulated since birth by mysterious people who hope he will one day save the earth and humanity from an alien race. Something he doesn't seem to have much of a choice about.

Hailee Steinfeld and Asa Butterfield in the movie.

Though I was only mildly interested in the book, I ended up getting my hands on a copy pretty quickly, started reading a day later, and finished it two days after that. I don't want to go too much into what I thought about it, as it could easily be an entire blog post itself, and I don't want to give away any spoilers, but it was a very interesting read. And I enjoyed it, though (since I've already compared it to THG) not as much as I enjoyed The Hunger Games. After having read it though, I realize that's not a very fair comparison. So forget that. I'll just say I didn't love it, but I did read and finish it happily, and most importantly, it consumed my thoughts during the read and for several days after.

I suppose it goes without saying now that I'm very interested in seeing the film. The trailer conveniently released the day before I finished reading, so I watched it as soon as I was done, and from the little information I gathered from the one-and-a-half minutes I think that it will at least be as good as the book. I optimistically imagine it will be better, mostly because the story demands creative and amazing visual sequences... and they're looking good.

Have a look.



I knew as soon as I started reading the book that Asa Butterfield was the perfect choice for Ender, and the rest of the cast looks equally great. I'm very interested to see how it's adapted, and if I'm right as I hope I am, and the film is equal to or better than the book, I will happily consider myself a new fan of the franchise. It's scheduled to release on November 1st this year.

True Grit

The film opens with a Bible verse: The wicked flee when none pursueth,... Proverbs 28:1. Then a dark, snowy shot of a man lying dead on the ground as his murderer gallops away with his horse, and his two California gold pieces. The dead man's daughter, and our heroine, Mattie Ross explains that the killer could've walked the horse out of town, because no one could be bothered to chase him. At fourteen years old, she must take matters into her own hands. She does this by hiring the meanest US Marshal available to help her track down the half-witted killer Tom Chaney, and have him hanged to avenge her fathers murder. Rooster Cogburn is the Marshal of her choice because she heard he had grit. A Texas Ranger, LeBeouf, a rather ridiculous man who jingles when he walks, wants the fugitive too, and eventually, the odd trio set out together on an adventure that would forever change the lot of them.

Let me just go ahead and say right now; I'm having a very hard time thinking of something I didn't like about this movie. This is the sort of movie I decide to watch for whatever reason, but once it's over, I only want to watch it more than before it began. I  know it's strange, but it's true, and mildly annoying. And for me, this almost magical and annoying feeling qualifies a movie as great, then I just have to figure out why. This is for sure one of those movies. The why? Well, everything. From the usual things like acting and cinematography, to details like costumes, and every individual line, True Grit has my official stamp of approval. And there's no way I'll be able to list all the little details that are included in why I like it so much, but I'll see what I can do.

The first thing that strikes me about this movie is the wonderful acting and the deep characters it creates. Every time I watch this movie I notice, or discover something different, or go a little deeper into the characters and plot. One thing I've always known though, is that Mattie is the one with the true grit. Cogburn looks and acts like it, and LeBeouf brags about it, but Mattie's truly got it. And Hailee Steinfeld does a perfect job conveying exactly that. Her honesty and pure determination is amazing, but you always believe she's a fourteen year old girl, however remarkable. Rooster is gritty in his appearance, always dirty and scraggly, drunk, and bellowing out witty insults or mumbling on about nothing. He's good at what he does and probably thought something of himself until Mattie came along and showed him up. But he's got a heart of gold underneath... somewhere. Jeff Bridges was of course, perfectly cast for this part, and is hilarious in it. Who would have thought they'd ever enjoy watching a drunk one-eyed man stumbling around and shooting things at random? The Texas Ranger, Lebeouf, is seriously puffed-up, and thinks he's all that, but really doesn't have a clue. He gets put in his place several times by his companions, but somehow always manages to recollect his pride again, until the next put-down. Matt Damon here is playing a man who only thinks he's as cool and suave as Damon's usual characters, like Bourne, and that is rather fun to see. I'd like to mention two more people briefly, the first being Josh Brolin as Tom Chaney, who doesn't have much screen time, but is quite satisfactory, most certainly a dim-wit, and I appreciate the time he gets. And the other is Barry Pepper as Lucky Ned Pepper, leader of the group of outlaws Chaney falls in with, who is great, and has the most amazing teeth. I really enjoyed watching spittle fly from his mouth and he yelled too.

I haven't seen many of the Coen brothers' movies, but I have a lot of respect for them as directors and writers. Especially as a team, they always seem to create something that is at the very least worth watching. Their style is a very specific kind of strange, and usually thought-provoking with just the right kind, and amount of violence and humor for the particular film. And True Grit is no exception. The realistic violence is shown without shame, but at the same time it isn't blatant; it's there because the story requires it, and I appreciate that. And the humor is wonderfully dry, and worthy of a real laugh, but sometimes has a interesting serious side to it. I love that about the movie; it's entertaining on the most shallow level, but if you want, you can look deeper and deeper, and see some really great truths about life, and the human character. Which, in my opinion, only makes the movie better every time you see it, and find something new buried there.

Also making the movie better, each in their own way are the smaller, but by no means less important details. Like LeBeoufs ridiculous outfit. The cinematography is absolutely breathtaking too, I especially liked the first shot, and of course the scenery. And the score is lovely, but appropriate, regularly going back to the theme of the hymn, "Leaning on the Everlasting Arms."

As I said, I liked the first shot of the movie, where Mattie's father lies dead in the newly falling snow, the frame ever so slowly moves toward him as she begins to tell us the sad tale of his murder, at the appropriate moment, said murderer breaks through the shot, sending snow flying, and making his getaway, however temporary. This pairs wonderfully with the last shot. A now much older Mattie stands alone by her avenged fathers grave, as she finishes telling us her story, she turns and walks away. A western-accented woman gravely sings the theme hymn, as we watch our heroine slowly shrink into the distance. Successfully wrapping up this beautifully gritty film in a neat, re- and re-watchable package.

-5/5 stars