Mission: Impossible - Fallout

Spoiler-free!!

This is what happens when the people who work on a franchise respect the franchise. Each film stands alone, yet each new release still inspires fans to rewatch previous installments. The past is respected, but the agenda is always to move forward. And the films themselves... they never count on selling tickets by brand-name, but are hard and winning pieces of filmmaking; carefully crafted and assembled by talented people who push the envelope beyond the realm of the possible. In a world overflowing with franchises, Mission: Impossible stands alone.

How does it do it? Well, you could say it's in the job description.

I could spend all day talking about this franchise as a whole. How it's a trendsetter, how casting choices always give dramatic boosts to the actors' future careers as they cycle through, or how the films are contradictory; of an extremely high quality, but also mainstream action films made to entertain. Entertainment can get lost in the fray of making films into high art or a message to change the world, but entertainment has always been the goal of Tom Cruise, and he always seems to trust the continued creation of this, his baby, to artists who share his vision.

Christopher McQuarrie is the first M:I writer/director to stay on for two films, and as he's taken the series to a whole new level, the second one feels like an extra-deserved bonus round. From my perspective, Fallout is similar in construction pattern to Rogue Nation, but makes everything new again in the way a fresh director usually does. Under his direction, the creative action beats are even more relentless, thrilling, and involving. I'm not usually vocal during movies at the theater, but I was exclaiming things like, "Oh no!" or "Look out!" all over the place. Once I even pointed at the screen and told Ethan, "He's over there!"

It's either a death-wish or a contagious and daring desire to entertain.

McQuarrie crafted this movie intentionally that way, because what's the point of all those practical effects and stunts if it doesn't all engage with the viewers and keep them thrilled, amazed and eager for more? This isn't a character film, but the story is personal enough for the characters to let us care about the result, down to each small goal. This whole film feels like a series of impossible tasks that, when each is amazingly accomplished is a mere stepping stone to the next. Even the extended sequences are constructed that way, keeping boredom far, far away.

Tom Cruise is amazing. He does his own stunts, his own driving, motorcycle riding, helicopter-flying, and fist-fighting. He executes difficult skydiving maneuvers, and even breaks his foot and keeps going until the take is over. Still my favorite is always the running. There are few things that can be captured on film as thrilling as a tracking shot of Tom Cruise in a full sprint. At some point he even has some genuine acting to do, and at that point he's just showing off. And I hope Simon Pegg stays as long as Cruise does, because Benji is basically the heart and soul of these movies. He handles the comedy, and always gets something awesome to do too.

Tom always comes out at the center, but he's not afraid of sharing screen time or being overshadowed.

Rebecca Ferguson is back, still brimming with grace and power, and feels so settled into the team it would be sad if she left now. Ving Rhames is always a great addition, and this film uses him better than ever. Sean Harris was the one return I was hesitant about, but seeing how he was utilized, it all make sense now. Then we have newbie lady Vanessa Kirby. She's this movie's personification of one of the main reasons I adore this franchise as more than films, but as boosts for actors. She's a good actress in need of a step up and is given a spotlight to take advantage of. She does. She stuns with a joyfully sultry character.

And, Henry Cavill. He's more well-known already by mainstream audiences, because mainstream audiences always know who's playing Superman. But his M:I role still gives him the same kind of opportunity as it does Kirby -- even more so since his character is more prominent -- a chance to impress, and to show himself to be capable of more than he's known for. He knocks it out of the park, and I've never enjoyed him more. He was so perfectly irritating and pompous. I hope this can rocket him out to find new roles that are more fun and/or meaty than the dull, handsome hunk of meat.

I sense good things in this guy's future.

Some of the set pieces blew my mind, and I spent a lot of time full-on giggling at how awesome everything gets. With a very basic understanding of how the production works, the stunts and camerawork are awe-inspiring. Sometimes you might realize how hard that would've been to pull off, like the skydiving shot, and sometimes I was simply left agape, wondering how the heck they did that, like the first hurdle of the helicopter sequence. It feels real because, well, it kind of is. But the movie does have moments for you to catch your breath with small and intimate character scenes, too.

I barely noticed with how completely mind-boggled I was over the relentless action, but there were a few one-on-one talking scenes that were full of subtext and motivations and themes to explore -- just like any other movie that doesn't feel like non-stop running, fighting, and crazy death-defying stunts. And those scenes are every bit as alive and electric as the action, not functional plot-ties only, but engaging on a different level. There's not much emphasis on character, and the plot isn't overly-complex; but even in the backseat, the same wonderful, commendable devotion is applied all around.

What the heck.

There's no shortage of films that are carefully crafted to have artistic merit, and, there are no shortage of films that are meant to be entertaining. Mission: Impossible is the place where those two sides unexpectedly intersect. Fallout is an immaculate and artistic creation; three years in the making; worth nearly two-hundred million dollars; of massive scale and aggressive ambition; and it was built to do one thing, and one thing only -- knock your freaking socks off.

Upcoming Movie Roundup - July

Okay! Last month I got out to see Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom as expected, and I will be seeing Incredibles 2 later today! Fallen Kingdom was pretty dumb. Dumber than I expected in fact -- but it had solid elements to it, and I expect I'll watch it again someday, if only for that one scene that unintentionally made me belly-laugh. Read my review here!

I got around to seeing Solo, despite warnings, and yeah, it's not good. But it's the kind of not good you can enjoy if you're not offended by how literally the story takes the existing Star Wars canon while simultaneously destroying it with some of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard of in my life. Review here!

Not a great year for the Howards.

And I caught up on some of the artsy film releases of earlier in the year -- Annihilation, (review) which I didn't care for, but it was fine; no shade if you loved it -- and Thoroughbreds (review) which I did love. I think about it a lot.

Summer's in full swing and there's not an overwhelming amount of new releases this month! If all goes according to plan I'll be seeing two of them in theaters. What are your movie plans for for July? Stay cool out there!


The First Purge
July 4th; R
Believe it or not, I've seen all the Purge movies so far. And I actually liked... one... of them. Or was it two? I dunno, but Frank Grillo's character is fun. I was super excited for the last one expecting it to be real dumb in a fun way because of the parallel's it seemed to draw with the 2016 election... but it wound up being all those things except the fun part. This one is even more political, and almost certainly even more toxic, so I'm probably done. Until it can be watched for free and then maybe. We'll see how high my curiosity gets, but without Frank... not promising.




Ant-Man and the Wasp
July 6th; PG-13
Man. I have never felt so ho-hum about a Marvel movie. I almost don't even want to see it -- but I already have tickets because I have a Marvel Fan for a brother. He, the Rotten Tomatoes score, and my pathetic hopes and dreams keep saying to me, "But what if it's actually good?" And to that I say: Then I'll have a real nice surprise I guess. I expect I'll enjoy it (as it's a comedy and therefore hopefully not a complete slog) more than Infinity War, but, man. The Marvel fatigue is for real right now. Still, I do my duty. They promised me Hawkeye and it had better be more than a cameo!




Skyscraper
July 13th; PG-13
What's this movie about? *watches trailer* Oh. Okay. Because of the poster I had the impression that The Rock spends most of the movie trying to get inside. But I see. As far as Rock action flicks go, this looks like it's on the higher scale of potential. Like a scifi-ish Die Hard knock-off. It would probably be more my thing if it wound up being laughably bad. But then again, Jumanji was a Rock action flick and it was awesome!




The Night Eats the World
July 13; TV-14
The water buckets collecting rain water on the roof of the building reminds me of 28 Days Later, which makes this movie seem like if 28 Days Later was just the part where they're hiding out in the apartment, which makes me think I'd enjoy watching this.




A Midsummer Night's Dream
July 13th; NR
I have a ubersoft soft spot for Shakespeare adaptations that keep the language but set the story in modern day. So count me in -- no other reason needed. I did notice that Fran Kranz is in the cast though. He was in Joss Whedon's Much Ado About Nothing and is generally pretty awesome.




The Equalizer 2
July 20th; NR
I don't exactly remember much of the first Equalizer movie, but I definitely remember liking the first Equalizer movie -- and that, plus this trailer, is good enough for me!




Mamma Mia: Here We Go Again!
July 20th; PG-13
Say the title with a sarcastic inflection. Yet, I'm kinda excited too. I hope it's as dumb and cheesy as it looks. They'd just better not rehash all the songs. I will be mad.




Mission: Impossible - Fallout
July 27th; (NR, but probably PG-13)
What is there even to say about this? It's Mission: Impossible, and has consistently been one of my top anticipated movies for the past three years! Tom Cruise is back to do dangerous things for our entertainment; my favorite Simon Pegg is back; the dark horse wonder woman from Rogue Nation Rebecca Ferguson is back; and the director who upped the anti in this impossibly crazy franchise, Christopher McQuarrie is back! No Jeremy Renner, but that's the nature of the franchise. New additions are Henry Cavill (with the infamous mustache) and Vanessa Kirby who I love. I'm ready. If this disappoints me I will never love again -- so don't let me down team! (With a trailer that looks like this I don't see how they could.)




Hot Summer Nights
July 27th; R
This movie looks so stylish I could watch it for that reason alone. All retro and neon. And I love the movie Charlie Bartlett so I guess I can't say anything about it being a teenage coming-of-age film where the main character deals drugs. I also saw Lady Bird a bit ago, so I can say I like Timothee Chalamet's acting abilities, and I definitely like Maika Monroe... so I guess I'm on board. Depends on how the plot goes as to if I'll like it or not.

Justice League

Spoilers!

It's sad that this movie feels like a small fry in comparison to Batman v Superman. It's a bit anti-climactic after most of the Justice League's members have already teamed up and fought something so powerful that it managed to kill Superman. How do you top that?

Answer: You don't. Not like this you don't. And topping BvS isn't even a high goal.

Well, you have to bring Supes (Henry Cavill) back to life. But casually sideline him because he's still OP. And you gotta find another super-powerful villain to challenge them. Then threaten the end of the world, cause that always ups the stakes. So CGI villain Steppenwolf (Ciarán Hinds) arrives, cued by the death of Superman, to destroy and conquer the Earth. Batman (Ben Affleck) and Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot), aware of the coming invasion, collect The Flash (Ezra Miller) Aquaman (Jason Momoa) and Cyborg (Ray Fisher) to fight him. The characters aren't bad, and the plot is cliched but not bad, but it's put together as if by random; everyone going through the motions; no soul, no power, no passion. Just... nothing.

Them deciding to use the weird liquid in the Kryptonian ship to bring Superman back to life, like Luthor did to create Doomsday, is the most unexpected and therefore most interesting part of the movie. Which is unusual because it happens in the middle of the movie, where most superhero flicks flounder before getting to the end battle. I honestly expected Superman to show up unprompted and save the day, but they had to decide to restore him, and it took up a good portion of the movie to make happen. Still he's in it very little, and spends too much time with Lois (Amy Adams) and yes, his upper lip (where a mustache has been CG-ed out) is distracting.

"So what happened in Justice League, Diana?" "Oh, nothing very interesting."

Superman is likeable once he gets over being woken from his nap, and even gets cheesy a few times. Is this good or bad? Well... yes. Wonder Woman doesn't have her character ruined or anything, but she's nowhere near the height she reached in her solo film. Batman is just Batman. There's nothing particularly good about him, or anything particularly bad. He's just there. Cyborg ended up being the only one to impress and be better than expected; he's equally as well-done as everyone else. Aquaman was somehow both worse and better than I expected. My highest hopes were that Flash would be my favorite, but he was exclusively used for forced comic relief that only tempted me to laugh once. His potential remains, so we'll see about that solo film.

From scene to scene Lois will change from wig to no wig. It's noticeable, and cheap, and honestly I wish she hadn't been in the movie at all. This plus Superman's erased mustache, plus Steppenwolf's appearance as some villain on loan from a video game, are the outward evidence of this film's fundamental problem: Movies this massive, this expensive, and this hyped, should not be anywhere near this small and cheap. I haven't been this underwhelmed since X-Men: Apocalypse promised the apocalypse and delivered nothing but Oscar Isaac disguised in blue silicone. To make this movie was the entire reason the DCEU existed! But now it feels like a casual afterthought to BvS and Wonder Woman.

The most exciting thing about it is the promises of more to come -- but at what point are we going to stop believing them, if more exciting promises is all they ever deliver?

This film spends $300,000,000 delivering nothing, and has nothing to stand on but flat jokes, horrendous CGI, characters that have been better elsewhere, and lackluster stakes. The best I can say for it is that it didn't make me angry. BvS did, but now I'm wondering which is worse. At least BvS tried to do something and made me feel something -- even a bad something. With this, I've never been more disengaged watching a movie in the theater. Justice League, DCEU's Big Event Movie, that's been building up for five years, just did the worst thing it could do, and made a safe landing. We were promised an Earth-shattering kaboom, and all we got was a soft, apologetic thump.

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

This review is Spoiler-free.

It's here. Zack Snyder's highly anticipated and impressively controversial sequel to Man of Steel, and setup for The Justice League, where Henry Cavill returns as Superman, and Ben Affleck dares to take on the role of the Dark Knight. And, as the title demands it, they must fight. But they must also join together to defeat Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg) and his evil plan for a... Doomsday. Joining them is: Amy Adams, returning as Lois Lane; Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman, and Jeremy Irons taking the mantle of Alfred Pennyworth.

"The greatest gladiator match in the history of the world: God versus man; day versus night; Son of Krypton versus Bat of Goth--" you know what? Just get to it already!

The giant, hero vs. hero film is controversial because, well, it's giant, and people seem to think either it's the worst thing to come out of the superhero genre since Iron Man set the new standard, or the best. The general consensus seems to lean toward the former. I was skeptical of the film's quality ever since it was announced, and went in with low expectations and an open mind. But, as few things ever are, this film is not totally good or bad, but rather sits in a grey area. There were elements that were better than I expected, and ones that were even worse.

First thing: our two heroes in the ring. As you may know I detested Man of Steel, but did maintain that I thought Henry Cavill could play a good Superman given the proper opportunity. Well, that opportunity has still yet to arrive. He still looks the part but is oddly stiff in his acting. Like, I know it's a played comparison, but it feel like they were actually trying to make Supes be reminiscent of Jesus, but did it all wrong by making him all stiff and religious and stoic acting. Where's the guy's humanity? It came through a little more when he was being Clark. As Superman though, I waited a long time to hear him speak; to really address someone as Superman and have a conversation, but it never happened, and the few things he does say feel super rehearsed. He's at his best when fighting, and of course, doing great heroic acts.

I want to like him. I really do.

Ben Affleck's Batman fell more to my liking, with only a few notable flaws. His Batman felt so experienced it was liked he'd already made three or four films as the character that I just hadn't seen. You can feel his past. Yet he doesn't let the part where his past haunts him bog down the character too much. He does, however, have way too many dreams. I mean good grief. His Bruce Wayne also, is less of an alter ego and more of an actual, useful character. Less playboy, more businessman, and it's nice. Affleck also looks the part spectacularly. Still, for all the time he spends on screen, most of it is spend glaring and brooding, and as good of a brood as it is, there is a lack of true depth.

Both these men are total idiots. I could never decide if I was team Superman or team Batman because every time one of them presented their case for wanting to stop the other, I disagreed with them. Both of them, every time. I felt for Bruce because Supes and Zod killed so many with their collateral damage-heavy fight of the previous film, but I also can't blame Superman for that. I blame Snyder. Superman may be darker in these films, but he's still absolutely noble, and it is not in his character to let innocents die. The fact that he did is not a defining element to his character, but a flaw in the film. If it is a part of his character, then his beef with Batman is extremely hypocritical. For the Bat's part, he tries to justify killing Superman saying that he could destroy the whole world if he wanted to, and that's close enough. Grasping at straws, guys, really. But I get it: as Ken Watanabe said, "Let them fight."

Batfleck wishes he could fight an actual villain...

The supporting cast was mixed as well. Outstanding as bad: Lex Luthor takes the top spot! Jesse Eisenberg's Lex was, I am sad to say, one of the worst superhero villains I have ever witnessed. And the only one I've ever been embarrassed for. Eisenberg came across like he was going for a depressed Joker who had drunk too much coffee, and every time he tried something dramatic it was painfully distracting and obvious. I don't care anything about his age or appearance, and I bet he has the ability to play an interesting Luthor. But not today. Also, I really dislike Lois. And I like Amy Adams, so it's not a bias. Lois is just so pathetic, always perfectly adept at getting herself into danger with her strong-headed spirit, and equally adept and not being able to get herself out. She seems determined to be more than just the hero's girlfriend, but only succeeds in being a bother and taking up screen time with useless plot.

On the good side, Jeremy Irons fit the part of Alfred like a glove; but never got to do a thing with it. Gal Gadot's Wonder Woman gets a good introduction -- although it would have been a fun surprise if I didn't already know who she was, because she comes across like Catwoman at first. But she helped liven up the film, and properly teased for her solo outing.

That awkward moment when you thought you were a crazy Batman villain, and are introduced to the guy you really have a vendetta against... and it's Superman.

Plot. It started off with good intentions to be a complex narrative leading clue-by-clue up to the final climax, but just before it actually got there, suddenly none the plot lines were actually necessary to get there. All that planning and plotting and scheming and investigating -- all for practically nothing, and all adding up to an almost totally useless first half of the whole film. And once the third act begins, the film forgets that it wanted to be a smart movie with a weaving narrative and grown-up things like motivations and grey areas, and just throws everything at an explosion-filled, "POW WHAM ZAP" of an end battle. Where everything is burning, and the explosions are exploding and more CGI fills a frame than anything else.

And it was fine. The third act was just as decent and just as terrible as the first two, just for different reasons. So I may wonder at the necessity of the movie's first half, but hey -- without the first half there could be no second half. So... I could wonder at the necessity of the whole film. The true point of the film was to set up The Justice League, plain and simple. The "Batman v Superman" part was to create appeal and gather an audience, and that's exactly what it did. It tried its hand a politics but gave up (probably after confusing itself); and it threw a bug budget into giant jumbled mess of action to entertain, but it's not exactly quality. But, when Wonder Woman comes around, and after that The Justice League, people will be there; some hoping that they're improved a few things this time round, and some probably determined to love it all no matter what.

Baitman! And Superbman! And Wonderful Woman!

This was a movie not made to be good cinematic work, but to be enjoyed; and even I got more enjoyment out of it than I imagined I would. Sometimes, while I laughed to myself at how bad one thing was, I was simultaneously able to appreciate the fun of it too. This film also has a unique and extreme comic book feel to it that I hadn't experienced in any other Superhero film before. Perhaps Snyder's visual style helped with that, but it also comes across in the tone in an interesting way. Even though it's so serious, the seriousness actually plays a factor in finding the film's overly glossy, but oddly fitting state of being. There's a constant stream of drama that is taken very seriously by the film, but it isn't on the same level as a "real life" type film would have. There's no sense of shame; no tongue in cheek; no safety net. It just throws itself into the fray; clumsily, lumbering and oddly disconnected.

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice winds up making a confusing mess of things that require any amount of tact, like plot, or character, or really anything that isn't fighting -- and even that is generous. But, underneath all that overlong sludge, the hum-drum attempts at meaning, and the caking layers of indulgent chaos, there's something admirable in the effort.

The Man from U.N.C.L.E.

This review is Spoiler-free.

Based on the classic 60's TV show of the same name, this Guy Ritchie-writ and directed spy caper focuses on the adventures of an American spy (Henry Cavill) and an Russian one (Armie Hammer) when they are partnered together to protect a German girl (Alicia Vikander) and catch some evil bad guys who have a nuclear bomb.

I still don't know what U.N.C.L.E. stands for. Probably only because I wasn't paying attention.

Plot really isn't the important part of this movie. It gives way to the movies sense of style, and before you know it 60's glam is permanently in the driver's seat. And credit to where credit is due; it's all quite effectively glamorous. Costumes and cars and cheeky characters lounge around and give off the impression that this is less of a movie and more like a fashion magazine. And eventually the glam turns to glare. I write this a few weeks after seeing the film, and what has stuck with me most is the lack of impression I had concerning almost anything except how the movie looked.

I didn't expect too much from the characters, and got about what I expected to, but the results were turned around a little. I thought Henry Cavill's character would be the most interesting since he was the "main character," but Armie Hammer's character wound up being just as "main" and even more likable and interesting by far -- in spite of the distracting Russian accent. His Illya turned out to be quite a sweetheart with endearing complexities while Cavill's Solo was charming on the surface, but too cool to touch underneath. Vikander's Gaby fell victim to the confusion of an overly-sharp plot twist, and never regained footing back in her character for me after that. Elizabeth Debicki was endlessly stoic and elegant, and the most convincingly retro, but her villainous character never strove for anything beyond the surface, in a classic case of style over substance.

Yes, a nap sounds like a nice idea...

The plot never engaged me enough for me to bother to really try and follow it, and by the time I realized that waiting for the action scenes was going to leave me unsatisfied in the end (because action scenes were rather few and far between) it was too late. It was certainly my fault, and thinking back the dramatic scenes were not at all bad, it's just that I was only really engaged in them when they were specifically developing character. And then only really in Illya's case. There were more action scenes at the film's beginning (which in my defense did give me a wrong first impression) and there were only three or four really memorable scenes -- two being a car chase sequence. After the latter car chase, the film puttered off to an end climax based on non-action things -- spy stuff and plot things that I didn't want to pay attention to, and the last "gotcha" moment was just dramatics which, I found, was pretty unfulfilling.

A little romance never hurts, fortunately.

I was hoping this would be a fun and funny caper where I could turn my mind off and enjoy a film that was made to be enjoyed, with no effort required. Unfortunately, the movie didn't have the cotton candy/popcorn flavor that would have found success with me. I knew it wouldn't be a ground breaking feat of the cinema, but it turned out to not be the kind of goofy cheesy spy-flick that turns my head either. Its main goal seemed to be setting up for a sequel that will probably never happen now because they forgot to make the one it had memorable. I simultaneously found it too serious, yet not serious enough; charming, but not drawing, often humorous, but not funny, and dramatic, but not witty. Characters and action stood out, but didn't get enough attention devoted to them to be truly rewarding. The Man from U.N.C.L.E. fades away into a brightly colored, jumbled, and hazy ball of not-quite-good-enough.

Upcoming Movie Roundup - March

February was another slow movie month for me. I still want to see P&P&Z, and Hail, Caesar! -- plus Eddie the Eagle which I missed when doing my last Upcoming Movie post, but have taken notice of since -- but I haven't gotten to the theater for any of them, and will probably just end up waiting. But maybe not, because March doesn't have any must-see-in-theater flicks either (as far as I can tell), though it does have quite a few that land in the same "really want to see at some point" category that the previously mentioned three are waiting in.

Which March movies look interesting to you?


London Has Fallen
Mar 4th; R
Aaron Eckhart and Gerard Butler return as the President of the United Stated and his loyal bodyguard who saved his life in the last film and is gonna do it again. But it London. With higher stakes, I assume. I caught Olympus Has Fallen on TV a while back, and enjoyed it pretty well. Though I thought it was pretty bad, it had a violent, serious appeal, and it was certainly better than White House Down with much more likable leads and its more hardcore vibe. So I wouldn't mind catching this one too someday.




Zootopia
Mar 4th; PG
It's not like I don't want to see this one, but right now I'm super tired of the trailers getting everywhere. Animated Disney movie trailers are seriously the worst things ever. They make this movie look so annoying and are probably giving away all the jokes too. However I have learned to not judge a Disney animation by its trailer, and all the extremely positive reviews coming in are much more convincing that this one may just be a gem. But the sloth jokes are driving me crazy.




The Divergent Series: Allegiant
Mar 18th; PG-13
Uuuuhhhhhh. Is it worth mentioning that Insurgent was so boring that I was basically done with this series as soon as I saw it? First of all, Allegiant was the worst book of the series, and I don't care to see it end on screen. There's no enjoyment for me there, unless some huge changes are made. Secondly, this isn't even the end, because (that's right!) the last book is split into two movies! Yaayyyy... Except no Part1/Part2, now there's an "Ascendant" to look forward to. I'm not saying I'll never see this one or the last one. There is after all, the matter of my curiosity and my favorite character Peter. But seeing it in the theater is a long shot. Almost as a long a shot as this movie breaking the pattern and being a truly good movie!




Midnight Special
Mar 18th; PG-13
I seem to find one every month. One movie that I know noting about but the cast makes me immediately want to see it. This time it's this sci-fi film that want to be like Close Encounters of the Third Kind, and the interesting cast is Adam Driver and (his great uncle in the Star Wars universe!) Joel Edgerton. And slightly less interestingly, Michael Shannon and Kirsten Dunst. Plus it has the writer and director of Mud, which I absolutely adored. I love me some sci-fi, so the plot does actually seem intriguing too, and reviews are pretty positive, so I just may be giving this one a watch sometime!




The Little Prince
Mar 18th(limited); PG
This one's been a long time coming, but is finally almost here. This trailer is pretty spectacular, and the cast is large and talented, and I expect it'll be a very well-received movie. It looks great, I'll be very surprised if it isn't, and I'm definitely planning to want to see it for myself.




Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Mar 25th; PG-13
Do you have any idea of how hard it was for me to not type "Bateman vs. Superbman" just then? It was a struggle. At least I got it out of my system now. So Henry Cavill is back and Zack Snyder is back, and Ben Affleck's Batman is about to get its debut, and I can't decide what I think. Should I laugh? Cry? Shrug and roll my eyes? Forget about his whole thing and wait for a good hero vs. hero movie to come along -- AKA, Civil War? Funny enough, it actually looks like a decent Batman movie at the beginning of this trailer. Then Supes and Drama and Snyder's infamous action style shows up, and I'm back to rolling my eyes. Anyway, I guess I'm done now. Moving on...




I Saw the Light
Mar 25th(limited); R
Tom Hiddleston has faded a little away from the peak of his popularity, but he's still a talented actor and I imagine he does a fantastic job in this role. I don't think I'd mind watching him in anything even if he does trade in his British accent for a country one that sound like what I hear all the time, and he even sings in this movie to make up for it.... But besides that I have absolutely no interest in this movie whatsoever. It does not look good. And as much as I like Hiddleston, he's not going to be enough to get me to watch this. Ho-hum reviews coming in seem to share my opinion.

Upcoming Movie Roundup - August

July turned out fantastically! I saw my two must-watches, and they were both even better than I expected. Ant-Man was hilarious and a wonderfully fun time (read my review here), and Mission: Impossible Rogue Nation was one incredible, gleeful action sequence after another. (Stay tuned for a very positive review of it.) I didn't get to see Paper Towns quite yet though -- I'll be seeing it later today, actually.

August doesn't have a large number of film of interest to me, but of the films that are interesting, they're very interesting. There may end up being two must-sees for me this month too! Which end-of-summer flicks are you excited for? Any I don't mention? Let me know about them in the comments!

Fantastic Four
Aug 7th; PG-13
This one will only reach must-see status if the reviews come out right. As in, better than the 2005 F4. To make it interesting let's include the Silver Surfer sequel to the too -- it was a little better, but both were bad enough to be easily topped by this reboot, which is looking pretty neat by the trailers. And by "pretty neat" I mean really, very, super neat. The cast of Miles Teller, Michael B. Jordan, Kate Mara, and Jamie Bell is fantastically promising, and the cool concept, science-y elements are very intriguing. I have every confidence that this team will finally live up to their name.




The Gift
Aug 7th; R
Written by, directed by, and starring one of my favorites, Joel Edgerton, along with Jason Bateman and Rebecca Hall, this psychological thriller I've seen floating around, but it only just now actually caught my attention. An oh my goodness -- it looks good. I mean, it looks terrifying, but really good. I don't think I would survive a theater showing, but I'll be waiting for the DVD/rental with... suspenseful anticipation.




The Man From U.N.C.L.E.
Aug 14; PG-13
It may flip-flop around (or it may not) but right now, I'm actually more excited for this movie than I am for the previously mentioned last superhero movie of the summer. Just because of the trailer. It just looks like an absolute blast. The kind of brilliant fun that makes you laugh at all the awesomeness and then say things like, "I can't even" just because you can't find any words to actually describe all the things you're feeling. Even if it doesn't quite meet those expectations, I can't see it being any less than a movie worth seeing. Henry Cavill, Armie Hammer star with Hugh Grant, Jared Harris, Alicia Vikander and The Great Gatsby's Elizabeth Debiki co-starring.




American Ultra
Aug 21st; R
This one will probably be too much with too little interest for me to actually ever see until it's television days, but it is a good action-comedy idea, and the trailer certainly is amusing. Jesse Eisenberg is a loser stoner who is really a sleeper spy, and is suddenly activated to stylishly violent, and comedic results. Kristen Stewart is his girlfriend.

9 New Nerdy SDCC Trailers

The massive entertainment event called the San Diego Comic Con spurred the (in one case unwilling) release of many new trailers videos for upcoming, highly anticipated films and TV shows. I shared the first one I saw, the Doctor Who Series 9 trailer in a separate post, but then they started coming so fast they overwhelmed me so that I could barely form a coherent thought about one before the next showed up! But now the Comic Con is over and things are settling down, so now I'm just going to share all the trailers I found interesting all together, right here, right now:

Doctor Who
Click here for my original post on this, but the gist of it is this: I love Doctor Who. I didn't love the last season. I'm still hoping to love this one. This trailer does nothing to weaken that hope. Peter Capaldi's hair finally remembered that it's the hair of a Doctor and has acted accordingly.



Sherlock
This is less a trailer and more a first-look clip. And as long as the setting of the late 1800's is explained reasonably, it doesn't seem like this Sherlock one-off special will be any less awesome than the past three seasons have been. They certainly are taking full advantage of the setting by having Cumberbatch's characterization match the Sherlock Holmes of the books exactly. And he delivers that first line just as brilliantly as he ever has delivered a line. John's mustache is fantastic, and Mrs. Hudson is the land-lady, and not a plot device. Everything appears to be in order, and the game is on! Or, should I say "afoot"?




Con-Man
I don't know if I'll ever see this, but I love the idea of it so, SO much. Alan Tudyk writes directs and stars along with Nathan Fillion, and the rest of the Firefly cast have cameos. It's about a man who starred on a tragically cancelled sci-fi series (sound familiar?) and since hasn't been able to do anything better, but just goes to sci-fi conventions, signs autographs, and bemoans his terrible fate. I don't know how appropriate the Vimo web-series will be, but it looks pretty funny at least, and I love that it's not even subtle about it's Firefly references. Language Warning for the trailer:




The Man in the High Castle
This is an Amazon series. It's an adaptation of a Philip K. Dick 1962 science fiction novel about what would have happened if America had lost the second World War. Philip K. Dick is the author of the stories that were adapted into Blade Runner, Total Recall, Minority Report, The Adjustment Bureau, and several more, and that is a huge appeal to me. The trailer is extremely dark though, and it may end up proving to be too much, but I really really want to give it a shot, and the pilot episode is available for streaming right now...




Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Or as I fondly refer to it: Bateman v Superbman: Down of Justice. This is probably the trailer that had the biggest impact on the general crowd of movie fans. And it had a pretty big impact on me too; I've never experienced the sensation of feeling anger towards a movie trailer before. Now I'm trying to decide if I should attempt to explain all the ways it angered me or not... oh, why not -- rant time!

First of all, Superman's character is still being cruelly whittled away into a sad pile of distorted and discarded goodness. He's still the man who let thousands of people die by hesitating to kill one evil man, but now he doesn't even seem to know what he should do anymore -- he won't even defend himself from masses of people who worship him as a god! The best thing to do about the Man of Steel casualty count was to ignore it, not exploit it, but I guess that's the only way they could figure to rile up the Bat. Batman is slightly better. When people he knows die from Supes indecision problem, he comes out of retirement for revenge. And if one single person dies from the resulting battle, he'll be a complete hypocrite.

The joyless, "real-life" serious tone set promises to bore with unending relentless and forced lifelessness masquerading as drama. And speaking of "relentless", the battle sequences promise that too. I love the stylized look of those scenes with the dark endless piles of rubble lit with random little fires that fill the screen with floating embers and will undoubtedly look epic in 3D... a clue: no. (I've been watching BBC's Robin Hood.) I'm trying to figure why people say that this is the best trailer they've ever seen, and I think it boils down to one thing: the magnificent music. ... Never mind, I'm not going to comment on that. I think I'm done. I'll just add that if you like this trailer, or even think it's the best you've ever seen, I'm not trying to dissuade you or say you're wrong. Opinions; to each their own!




Suicide Squad
Now THIS is how to do a inviting DC movie trailer! I know next to nothing about these characters and this story, but this trailer make me want to watch the movie it advertizes. Very much. Everything about this trailer just oozes with a slick and unforced darkly cool style. It has twice the required dosage of DC darkness but still feels unmistakeably fun. And I wonder if it will even go so far as to get an R rating? I wouldn't be surprised, but I would be disappointed if the content reached a level that I wouldn't want to see, because right now I really want to see this. This seems like DC's best chance at a "Guardians of the Galaxy" -- that seems like high praise I know, but that's just in comparison with DC's rebooted film record so far: Man of Steel and the trailer I just finished bashing. Almost anything would be an improvement.




The Man from U.N.C.L.E.
And HERE is a Henry Cavill movie I can actually get excited about! This trailer is 5 minutes of snappy snazzy slick vintage fun, and I am left with no doubt that the film it advertizes will be exactly the same. Need I say more? I think not. Don't believe me? Just watch:




Fantastic Four
On the side of Marvel Superheroes, things continue to be solid, and this new F4 trailer that features Reed Richards as a kid stays firmly in that vein. This movie is looking very solid. I was interested in it the moment I saw Jamie Bell and Miles Teller in the cast, but beyond that, it really is looking like a well-done reboot, steering away from the cheesiness of the last effort, but still remembering to be exciting and fun. Definitely looking forward to this one's upcoming release.




Star Wars
And this isn't a trailer, but a behind-the-scenes featurette for the making of The Force Awakens, the main point of which, I believe is just to reassure fans once again that this franchise is in good and loving hands. And it does a great job being convincing of that fact. All the people involved in this love this world as much as any of us, and are obviously invested in making it as great as they possibly can. And they seem to be having a blast doing it. I have every confidence in this film, and can't wait to see the finished product!

New Trailer - Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

The first real trailer for Zack Snyder's Batman v Superman movie leaked today, so they went ahead and released it, which it turns out is a fitting way for the film to be introduced to us audience, if anything can be assumed about the film from this trailer:



My assumption? I'm not gonna like it. (That may be an understatement.) Before now, I've held the opinion that it will undoubtedly be a less than good superhero movie, but that it would at least be amusing to watch -- and maybe make fun of. But this trailer killed that idea for me with one thing: Superman is letting people think he is and/or treat him like he's a god!?! What is this?!? Superman is supposed to stand everything that is right and good, and he's going around all stoic-like as people kneel to him? Good. Grief. Forget the inevitable plot holes; forget the millions of innocents that will inevitably die in the chaotic wake of these two heroes; forget the terrible drama and the failed joke attempts; forget the meaningless emptiness that Snyder has perfected and will leave us with once the relentless action ceases; this movie's downfall is right there. I don't need to see the movie anymore -- I already detest it.

On the brighter side, I'm very much over caring one way or another about Ben Affleck's takeover of Batman. If anything, I'm on the positive side about it, but that might just be in comparison with the rest of the impression this trailer left on me. He may not be as cool as Christian Bale, and his costume may be sillier, (that chunky one with the lighted eyes...) but he looks pretty legit, and certainly does have the brood down pat.

I thought there was no way they could have added more to the annoying terribleness that was Man of Steel, but with the first real look at this... this Dawn of Justice, I have to say I've changed my mind.

What are your thoughts on this new trailer? Does it help or hinder your previous opinions of the movie?

Man of Steel

In a summary, Man of Steel looks exactly like every other Superman origin story, but the hero has been fundamentally changed, and there's too much for me to want to explain in plot-summary, but rest assured, I'll hit (and beat) on it later.

I'll dive in with my two favorite things about this movie: Henry Cavill and Amy Adams. Cavill looks the part of Superman, no doubt about it, and he's surprisingly convincing as an alien, and I think a great choice to play a modern version of the character. As "Clark" he was enjoyable, but as Superman he sadly only gets to brood, so there a only glimpses of the Superman I've been wanting to see. He's got the potential though, and a play-date with Ben Affleck, so there's a little straw of hope to grasp at. Same for Adams; I couldn't say she was badly cast as Lois Lane -- partly because I don't believe it, and partly because I don't know the character enough to judge -- but she was mostly used as a plot device, and didn't reach her normal heights. But they do get a classic superhero style meet-cute, which is probably the most interesting scene in the film.

I know -- you can't see Lois in this picture, but hey, it's better than my only other option, in which they're about to kiss...

Zack Snider gets directing credits, so anything I dislike I happily credit to him. Even though I've only seen snippets of his other efforts, I understand his style, and it is obviously present in this movie -- the action sequences were uniquely stylish and had a comic book kind of flavor, but they were also overlong and completely devoid of anything compelling. They were overwhelmingly noisy, and with no emotional weight, they were only beautiful from a strictly technical perspective. And this was at least half of the two-and-a-half hour movie -- it goes on so long and so heartlessly, it eventually passes being simply boring and settles boldly on annoying. And the dramatic scenes were slightly better, but mostly dull as well. In a couple scenes, there were also attempts at comedy, but it invariably fell painfully flat.

I'm including this picture here to remind myself that it wasn't all bad. (No, actually, I'm putting this picture here because I want to put it somewhere and this is the only spot left.)

Warning: Spoilers in the next two paragraphs.

Superman's father, Jor-El, is played by Russell Crowe, and even though he's suspiciously convenient about appearing via hologram as a plot device, he's still at least as compelling as any other character... especially his human "counterpart" who did not get an ounce of sympathy from me. Jonathan Kent, played by Kevin Costner, is nothing but annoying, and doesn't know that "with great power comes great responsibility" (this isn't Marvel after all) -- he insists that a young Clark not show his powers whatever the cost. Fortunately, Clark doesn't listen when it would mean letting someone else get hurt. "What was I supposed to do, let them die?" he asks, and the reply is a pathetic, "Maybe..." Later Mr. Kent forces Clark to let him die, even though Clark could have easily saved him without drawing suspicion. And I get the idea; Kent is trying to protect him from the world, and the world from him, but come on; he's invincible, he doesn't need protecting, and why would the world will be ready in twenty years, if it's not ready now? It doesn't make sense, and Kent's death (and subsequent death of that idea) was relieving.

Keep it up, Mini-Man-of-Steel -- you obviously know what's what in spite of your dad acting crazy.

But that wasn't the only fundamental problem with this movie, the most popular being that Superman isn't supposed to kill people, but he kills General Zod (Michael Shannon). And while that does bother me a bit -- just because it was unnecessary and easily avoidable, and only done to make Superman darker like Batman, which is also unnecessary -- at least it was justifiable, and nothing compared to the innocent death count. Apparently, it's not interesting to have a indestructible, unbeatable hero who always saves EVERYONE, so in order to make an exciting movie, something has gotta give, and in this case... it's everything. Everything that sets Superman apart is gone. Even though we almost only ever see expensive-looking shots of crumbling buildings, there's no denying that countless faceless people die unnoticed under the rubble of hundreds of demolished buildings, and Supes is not super enough to save but a handful of them. Plus, he seems to only care about the death of characters with names, and apparently we are supposed to too.

"Everybody lives, Rose! Just this once, everybody lives!" ... Nope, that's just me, wishful thinking.

I'm not much of a Superman fan -- I like the character, but not so much the movies -- but I was hoping this version would change that. Halfway through I gave up though, and from there, it grew continually worse, as it meandered destructively along, and the underdeveloped characters, and enormous plot holes, and uninspiring themes piled up disappointingly underneath all that expensive, lifeless wreckage. Super? Not today, Zurg!

Ben Affleck is Batman

People everywhere blink and yawn.

Ahem.

Ta. Da.

The 41-year-old American actor/director/screenwriter that you have probably heard of before, Ben Affleck has been confirmed as "the next Batman." (Is DC taking cues from Doctor Who now?) I don't think this is a good idea, but upon refection, I know it's not Affleck I protest to. The last thing we need right now is a new Batman, you might even go so far as to say.... he's the hero we deserve, but not the one we need right now.... ha... (or is that joke too obvious?)

Seriously though, we haven't gotten over Christian Bale and his gravely growl yet, so of course Ben Affleck isn't exciting to us! Putting all that aside though (just pretend it's actually about ten years in the future) Affleck is at least a very interesting choice.

First of all he's actually American, which is more than can be said for his growly predecessor (not that it matters since Bale is a perfectly convincingly American) and more than can be said for his soon-to-be alien "buddy" Henry Cavill.

Bats and Supes.

Affleck does seem well-cast for the Bruce Wayne part of the deal, and he no stranger to being a action/super hero either, though never to much critical acclaim. Critically, he best feature is directing, and I add my voice to this opinion as well. I never liked him at all until I caught The Town on the TV one day, and suddenly I respected him as a director. And curiously enough, his acting steps up a notch when he also directs.

Which leads to the most interesting factor of his casting. Apparently Warner Bros. has been eying him to direct The Justice League, and now that he's connected to the franchise, that idea becomes more and more likely. If he is hired to direct, I would be pleasantly surprised, but currently, my slight interest in all this Superman/Batman/Justice League stuff remains unvarying by this bit of casting news, and my low opinion of the franchise is only strengthened.

Here's something fun though, Batman and Superman discuss their upcoming "Vs." movie in a HISHE Super Cafe! If you haven't seen it, it's a must-watch, and if you have, I have given you the perfect excuse to watch it again. You're welcome.

Stardust

Sometimes it seems that the best, most original premises for stories can be summarized in a single question. For instance, the question, "what if we aren't alone in the universe?" has sparked countless alien movies, and then "what if aliens aren't evil?" sparked countless more. The more simple and unique the question, the more interesting and unique the story could be.

So take this one; "what if the stars gaze back?" Simple and unique to be sure, and also a bit quirky -- it would be right if its story was quirky too, It's imaginative, so a fantasy, with magic and sword-fighting, and flying pirates and witches. It might be a bit cheesy, but it would also be funny, exciting and sweet.

Stardust is all these things and more. Stars do gaze back, and what more, sometimes they accidentally fall. (Shooting stars!) One star named Yvaine (Claire Danes) is unceremoniously knocked from the sky by a large gemstone set in a necklace when the dying king of the realm of Stormhold sends it flying into the night, telling his three sons that one must retrieve it to claim the throne. As the star falls, three sister witches see it, and one goes out to find it, so they can consume the heart and be young again.

"A toast! To the new king of Stormhold... whichever of you fine fellows it may be."

In 1800's England, in a small village called Wall (so named for a mysterious wall on its border), a boy named Tristan (Charlie Cox) is trying to win the hand of his beloved, the beauty of the town, Victoria (Sienna Miller). They see the star falling, and make an agreement; if Tristan can bring the star back to Victoria by her birthday in one week, she will marry him; if not, she'll marry that pompous rich fellow Humphrey (Henry Cavill, and almost totally, hilariously, unrecognizable). Tristan is determined to succeed, but no one ever crosses The Wall. Once that little hurdle is jumped there's an unexpected problem; Tristan had no idea the star would be... a woman. And she's not too keen a being a birthday gift.

Obviously, she needs some convincing. Maybe bribery.

If there is one movie that just screams "high-flying, full-throttle, incredibly fun fantasy adventure" it would be this movie. The story, based on a novel by Neil Gaiman, is wonderfully complex for a lighthearted fantasy, with basically three plot lines running simultaneously, and intersecting every now and then. Tristan and Yvaine, on a time limit, hurrying towards the wall, the witch Lamia, Michelle Pfeiffer, growing older and uglier the more magic she uses, in pursuit of the stars heart, and the youngest prince, Septimus, Mark Strong, a likable bad guy if there ever was one, in pursuit of her necklace. There's also a pirate with a fearsome reputation, Robert De Niro being unpredictable, a kidnapped princess, ghosts for comic relief, and what fairy tale would be complete without a unicorn?

Oh no! Not... unicorns!! Just kidding, everyone knows unicorns are nice!

Acting wise there's nothing special, in spite of the all-star cast, which lesser-known Charlie Cox as the unlikely, awkward hero holds up against very well. Claire Danes' sarcastic heavenly being is a little strange at first, but she grows on you. The two together don't click as well as they should, which is slightly disappointing, especially when I realized that a sweet moment between girl and mouse was just as romantic as a sweet moment between girl and boy. Still, I hardly noticed that enough to care; there's so much more to occupy your thoughts.

A star learns to waltz...

The quirky plot unfolds briskly and smoothly from beginning to end. Aided by active, sweeping cinematography moving from place to place and scene to scene seamlessly, tying everything together with style. It also showcases some beautiful, middle-earth-like locations, and some epic, magical sets. The humor is hit and miss, and as the rating says, some of it is mildly rude, but it is usually at least mildly amusing, and sometimes it hits and is downright funny. The cheesy-ness is sometimes laughable as well, but in a purposeful way. (Self-deprecating humor makes everyone like you!) The action is swashbuckling at times and magic-y at times, and is good and exciting all the time.

Yikes.

Stardust is the practically the definition of it genre. Yet I consider it to be extremely original. It succeeds in telling a fun adventure story and in making it funny, romantic and fantastic. It's very light fare -- never going deeper than about, oh, two inches, but it lightheartedness also makes it endearing... and cheesy. Still it has its "serious" moments and its fantasy action and violence. It may go overboard, but it does it whole-heartedly, making you want to join in on the craziness, the fun, the giddy enthusiasm. And with a unique, memorable story is told this well, I have nothing else to say except jump on in.

Number ten!