Alrighty! In March I saw Captain Marvel as expected. Found it pretty unremarkable (review here). And sadly didn't get to see The Kid which I was hoping to be able to. I did watch Triple Frontier because it was on Netflix, and it was good enough to make an enjoyable watch, but I didn't have anything to say about it, so I didn't review it.
The biggest surprise though, was that I went to see Five Feet Apart, and not only that, but I really, really liked it! And not just in a typical teen romance kind of way. It was good in ways that surpassed the genre. But it also fit the genre too. It was a great balance of cheesy romance, real emotions, and informative of Cystic Fibrosis that worked without any element stepping on the toes of the others. (review here!)
I'm still annoyingly interested in seeing Dumbo too, but no one want to see it with me. Sad days. Anyway, April is shaping up nicely! If all goes to plan more than a few of these movies should be a good time! So what looks good to you?
Shazam!
April 5th; PG-13
My most anticipated of the month is first! Zachary Levi, Jack Grazer, Mark Strong... I haven't seen the kid who plays Billy before, but I bet he's good too. I admit, the trailer got tiresome when it first came out, but since my excitement has steadily been building regardless, and all the positive early reviews are only making me more pumped! The idea of making Big into a superhero movie seems like a ton of fun, and I'm looking forward to a superhero flick that isn't a boring slog for a nice change. The DCEU has had its downs but it's capable of great heights too, and I get a feeling this one's going up!
Pet Sematary
April 5th; R
I dunno, maybe someday, but definitely not in theaters. Honestly, I'm not over Hereditary yet, and need some more time before seeing legit scary movies again. Or maybe the way to fix it IS to see some better scary movies! I heard somewhere this is the scariest Stephen King adaptation yet. It does look good, and generally my speed. Jason Clarke and Amy Seimetz (of Stranger Things) star.
High Life
April 5th(limited); R
Robert Pattinson and his daughter, Mia Goth and other what? Criminals? In space? I keep an eye on all scifi movies, so this is here. But somehow, I get the impression that it isn't exactly what I'd want it to be. Looks pretty though.
The Wind
April 5th(limited); R
Another horror movie, and this one seems more supernatural, which isn't so much my horror speed. I do like the lonely setting and the richly low-key tone though. Will consider, if the opportunity arises...
Unicorn Store
April 5th; NR
Brie Larson's directorial debut, on Netflix, with her Captain Marvel buddy Samuel L. Jackson too. I feel like I'll definitely watch this, mostly out of curiosity and because it's on Netflix so it's free. The plot doesn't instantly appeal to me, but it could be interesting. Or it could be frilly nonsense. I guess we'll find out!!
Hellboy
April 12th; R
I just recently realized that my liking the Guillermo Del Toro version is kinda an "unpopular opinion" or maybe the people who didn't like it are just being extra hard on it in anticipation of liking this one more. I mean, it's rated R, so what could go wrong, right?? Well, that sounds fine to me, but I honestly didn't notice anything lacking in Del Toro's, and this one won't have his eye for visuals or practical effects. It's looks CGI, and less than spectacular. Also seems a bit cheap script-wise with several lame jokes in the trailer, but Del Toro's was no masterpiece on that score either. It does have David Harbour... in place of Ron Perlman. Seems like a toss-up there. If it gets good reviews though, I wouldn't be surprised if I went to see it.
Missing Link
April 12th(limited); PG
It's stop-motion animation. I don't care what it's about: I'll see it. But it's about some Bigfoot-type creature, apparently. And the cast is great: Hugh Jackman, Zoe Saldana, Timothy Olyphant, Emma Thompson, Zach Galifianikis, and Stephen Fry. Doesn't look like the best stop-motion ever, with the dumb jokes, but like I said. I'll give it a chance!
Teen Spirit
April 12th; PG-13
This is like the kind of movie that I'll always be interested in but never actually buckle down and watch. It looks great, I love the neon and the style... but plot-wise, there's this dread that it'll go the way it appears to be that might keep me away. Elle Fanning tries to become a teen music idol.
Stockholm
April 12th(limited); R
Yeah, I guess it looks pretty funny in a pleasantly dark way, and it's got Ethan Hawke, Mark Strong, and Noomi Rapace. I guess this is the real-life situation that started the whole Stockholm syndrome thing? All I know is that this is the sort of thing I might or might not ever watch, depending on if the mood strikes and there's nothing better to do.
The Perfect Date
April 12th; NR
Hahaha, yes, please! Noah Centineo rents himself out to high school girls in need of chaperones. So... like... a PG escort service. The premise alone makes me laugh. It's Netflix, it's a teen rom-com. You know I'm on board.
The Man Who Killed Don Quixote
April 19th(limited); NR
Is this for real? Is it actually coming? I feel like this movie doesn't actually exist and we're just getting duped right now. The biggest April Fools joke of all time or something. I know it has mixed reviews at the moment but I can't help being absolutely stoked -- it just looks exactly like my kind of deal. Jonathan Price, Adam Driver and Stellan Skarsgård. Terry Gilliam craziness hopefully. I don't know if and don't expect it to come to my theater, but I will definitely be seeing it at my earliest opportunity!
Under the Silver Lake
April 19th(limited); R
Another potential April Fools joke. This one I had in my upcoming post back in June of last year and I think it might actually be coming for real this time. Andrew Garfield and Riley Keough. At this point it's mostly the curiosity that's keeping me from forgetting it entirely.
Avengers: Endgame
April 26th; PG-13
Le sigh. My brother hasn't bought our tickets yet, but undoubtedly I'll be there opening night. I'm not dreading it, but I'm not excited either. There are things I think seem promising that I'll likely enjoy and other things that will almost certainly irritate me. At this point, it's par for the course with the MCU. The biggest event movie of the modern era, and my hype level is a resounding zero. Let's get it over with, so we can get back to Spider-Man.
Body at Brighton Rock
April 26th(limited); NR
This looks like quite the interesting little indie thriller. Obviously pretty cheap, but has a very solid premise of an inexperienced park ranger finding a body and having to wait with it for help to arrive. If they do the story well it won't matter at all if the production is cheap.
Showing posts with label Hugh Jackman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hugh Jackman. Show all posts
Monday, April 1, 2019
Friday, February 23, 2018
The Greatest Showman
....is obviously Hugh Jackman. P.T. Who? Just kidding, but seriously, there's no way this movie would have existed without Hugh Jackman. He is the first and last exceptional thing about this snappy, peppy, and colorful period musical.
Jackman is P.T. Barnum, the guy who invented freak shows and curiosity hoaxes. This movie puts him in a much kinder light, presenting him as a dreamer who just wants to put a smile on everyone's face. What they're smiling at might be fake, but the smiles are real! His more greedy side comes through whether it was meant to or not when he calls the "freaks" who work for him his friends in private, but shoos them away in public; and when he goes on tour with a beautiful opera star for no apparent reason. The movie makes out that he's innocent in the situation, but it makes me wonder.
How much is true? How must isn't? I don't know, so I'll set that aside, and review this as if it were all fiction. I imagine that's the accurate assumption to make. It all has a very fantastic feel anyway, as its set vaguely in the 1800's and all the music is super modern, which translates to the dancing styles, and then even seeps into the plot bit. It's a natural thing for a musical to do, but I would have felt more at home watching it on stage. It was like it was set in the period only because it had to be, but it certainly did make for some grand and lovely (however inaccurate) costuming.
The songs are musical pop, and every single one is incredibly catchy and toe-tapping-inducing. They don't much vary in style or general structure, so the easiest way to define them is the scene and dance each accompanied. My favorite was the bar duet between Jackman and Zac Efron -- a society man who joins Barnum's business to the detriment of his societal respect. The dancing on tables and swapping shots between verses was like something out of a classic musical of ye olden days.
That's what surprised me the most. I've never hated Efron or anything, but I've never respected him all that much either. But he was great in this, and strangely seems to have both grown up, and embraced his debatably embarrassing origins of cheesy song and dance and melodramatic romance. This movie has all three of those things for him, but now he just owns it, and it's not cringy or overdone, but just a lot of fun. I enjoyed what they had of romance with him and Zendaya's character, who's a trapeze artist in Barnum's circus. They spend a lot of time focusing on how this was a time when interracial couples were frowned on, and I wished they'd gone a bit deeper than that, but it was a sweet side plot. Their duet that used ropes and acrobatic choreography was one of the movie's best.
I appreciated that scene a lot because it was the one time the showcased dancing felt truly circus-y. Whenever the circus performances were going on, it was a whole lot of very fun and entertaining dancing, but not much of the freaky or requiring unusual talent. Not that it bored me, but I did wonder why we never saw a significant amount of trapeze performance. Or contortionists. Or a guy who bites head off of chickens. You know -- circus stuff. (Ok, I can see the reasoning behind the chicken thing.) The talent they had was singers and dancers that looked different. There was a tall guy, there was a fat guy, there was a bearded lady; and they were dancers so that's what they did.
So I missed the expected performance moments of "Wow, how in the world did that person DO that?" And don't get me wrong, I was thoroughly entertained, but there was an expectation there, and they failed to meet it. Same with Rebecca Ferguson's character, the opera star. As she was about to sing the first time, I was thinking, "Wow, Rebecca Ferguson is going to sing opera?" But then she didn't. It was belted musical pop just like everything else. I don't remember if the song was good; my main impression was that the style was a let-down. It's just mismanaged expectations.
Something I should have expected was that the plot was very skimpy and I was dying for more. One moment would be great for a character, and get my hopes up, but then go no further. And that's the traditional way of the musical, but in my defense, they did try to associate themselves with La La Land (they boast the same lyricists) and La La Land explored character through and around the music to a satisfying depth -- but that aspect didn't cross over. Instead they did a normal amount of character for the genre, and it often veered towards being too modernly "relevant" for my taste. Still, I'll take the blame for my dissatisfaction on that one.
An eventual second viewing (which may happen for that one bar scene duet) would likely improve enjoyment, with accurate expectations. Where my expectations were met, all was excellent as advertised. Mainly in two points: First, Hugh Jackman, who from the first beat to the very last, oozes entertaining and immaculately sharp showmanship. The guy is a performer, and a charmer, and he does his job WELL. And secondly, the visual dazzle, which was equally as on point as Jackman. There's always something to see that is pleasing to the eye, even in the stiller talking scenes, and the visual brilliancy of the dance scenes often left me smiling.
Watching this movie for me was like an exercise in the art of smiling at awesome things while simultaneously rolling eyes as silly things. There was about an equal amount of both, and little in between. It's a spectacle worth the sight, if only to be lightly entertained by Hugh and a bunch of other performers who are clearly having a grand time. And though many of the tricks are cheap and fake, I suppose it's true: the smiles are for real.
 |
| The man puts his all into everything he does. A true entertainer. |
Jackman is P.T. Barnum, the guy who invented freak shows and curiosity hoaxes. This movie puts him in a much kinder light, presenting him as a dreamer who just wants to put a smile on everyone's face. What they're smiling at might be fake, but the smiles are real! His more greedy side comes through whether it was meant to or not when he calls the "freaks" who work for him his friends in private, but shoos them away in public; and when he goes on tour with a beautiful opera star for no apparent reason. The movie makes out that he's innocent in the situation, but it makes me wonder.
How much is true? How must isn't? I don't know, so I'll set that aside, and review this as if it were all fiction. I imagine that's the accurate assumption to make. It all has a very fantastic feel anyway, as its set vaguely in the 1800's and all the music is super modern, which translates to the dancing styles, and then even seeps into the plot bit. It's a natural thing for a musical to do, but I would have felt more at home watching it on stage. It was like it was set in the period only because it had to be, but it certainly did make for some grand and lovely (however inaccurate) costuming.
 |
| Who'd've ever thought that Zac would return to his roots someday and sing manly duets with Hugh Jackman? |
The songs are musical pop, and every single one is incredibly catchy and toe-tapping-inducing. They don't much vary in style or general structure, so the easiest way to define them is the scene and dance each accompanied. My favorite was the bar duet between Jackman and Zac Efron -- a society man who joins Barnum's business to the detriment of his societal respect. The dancing on tables and swapping shots between verses was like something out of a classic musical of ye olden days.
That's what surprised me the most. I've never hated Efron or anything, but I've never respected him all that much either. But he was great in this, and strangely seems to have both grown up, and embraced his debatably embarrassing origins of cheesy song and dance and melodramatic romance. This movie has all three of those things for him, but now he just owns it, and it's not cringy or overdone, but just a lot of fun. I enjoyed what they had of romance with him and Zendaya's character, who's a trapeze artist in Barnum's circus. They spend a lot of time focusing on how this was a time when interracial couples were frowned on, and I wished they'd gone a bit deeper than that, but it was a sweet side plot. Their duet that used ropes and acrobatic choreography was one of the movie's best.
 |
| About as basic a romance as they come, but classic. |
I appreciated that scene a lot because it was the one time the showcased dancing felt truly circus-y. Whenever the circus performances were going on, it was a whole lot of very fun and entertaining dancing, but not much of the freaky or requiring unusual talent. Not that it bored me, but I did wonder why we never saw a significant amount of trapeze performance. Or contortionists. Or a guy who bites head off of chickens. You know -- circus stuff. (Ok, I can see the reasoning behind the chicken thing.) The talent they had was singers and dancers that looked different. There was a tall guy, there was a fat guy, there was a bearded lady; and they were dancers so that's what they did.
So I missed the expected performance moments of "Wow, how in the world did that person DO that?" And don't get me wrong, I was thoroughly entertained, but there was an expectation there, and they failed to meet it. Same with Rebecca Ferguson's character, the opera star. As she was about to sing the first time, I was thinking, "Wow, Rebecca Ferguson is going to sing opera?" But then she didn't. It was belted musical pop just like everything else. I don't remember if the song was good; my main impression was that the style was a let-down. It's just mismanaged expectations.
 |
| And to be fair, it's likely that my idea of Barnum's circus is every bit as different from the truth as this movie's is. |
Something I should have expected was that the plot was very skimpy and I was dying for more. One moment would be great for a character, and get my hopes up, but then go no further. And that's the traditional way of the musical, but in my defense, they did try to associate themselves with La La Land (they boast the same lyricists) and La La Land explored character through and around the music to a satisfying depth -- but that aspect didn't cross over. Instead they did a normal amount of character for the genre, and it often veered towards being too modernly "relevant" for my taste. Still, I'll take the blame for my dissatisfaction on that one.
An eventual second viewing (which may happen for that one bar scene duet) would likely improve enjoyment, with accurate expectations. Where my expectations were met, all was excellent as advertised. Mainly in two points: First, Hugh Jackman, who from the first beat to the very last, oozes entertaining and immaculately sharp showmanship. The guy is a performer, and a charmer, and he does his job WELL. And secondly, the visual dazzle, which was equally as on point as Jackman. There's always something to see that is pleasing to the eye, even in the stiller talking scenes, and the visual brilliancy of the dance scenes often left me smiling.
 |
| The pep is contagious. |
Watching this movie for me was like an exercise in the art of smiling at awesome things while simultaneously rolling eyes as silly things. There was about an equal amount of both, and little in between. It's a spectacle worth the sight, if only to be lightly entertained by Hugh and a bunch of other performers who are clearly having a grand time. And though many of the tricks are cheap and fake, I suppose it's true: the smiles are for real.
Friday, December 1, 2017
Upcoming Movie Roundup - December
I had a very productive Movie-November, watching Thor: Ragnarok, which was entertaining but far too shallow and irreverent (review here). Then Murder on the Orient Express, which was a lovely and well-performed production (review here). And then Justice League which wasn't the worst movie ever but sure did feel like it after all that promise and hype (review here).
Then I caught up on some other 2017 movies I missed in theaters -- Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets, which was better than expected and the most scifi fun I've had all year (review here); and Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales, which was worse than expected with low expectations, and really quite sad. I doubt I'll get around to reviewing it.
Also I forgot to mention it in November, but I also watched Netflix's Punisher, and it was fantastic. Frank Castle in all his jarringly violent glory. I just finished it last night, and it may be the most thoroughly great thing Marvel-Netflix has done. Review on that probably coming soon!
December looks to be slowing down a bit, mainly because I don't have much interest for Oscar-grab season. There's only one must-see for me -- Star Wars, of course, but plenty of others to keep a close eye on too. Are you excited for Star Wars 8? And is there anything else on your radar this month?
The Shape of Water
Dec 1st(limited); R
Sally Hawkins is great, Michael Shannon is great, Guillermo Del Toro is great, and his style of fantasy is great. The trailer is beautiful and unusual, and it looks like the kind of dark and serious fantasy I'd probably love. I won't be seeing it in theaters, but probably will someday. And reviews are saying it's great, so whenever I do see it, it will be with high expectations.
November Criminals
Dec 8th(limited); PG-13
Oh, I thought that after Baby Driver, Ansel Elgort would stick to grown-up movies. This movie screams teen movie that wants to be grown up so that's kinda awkward. It looks like it deals with serious issues, but then teen movies deal with serious issues they rarely do a good job. Based on a YA novel of the same name, which isn't necessarily a bad thing since novels are more likely to have cohesive plots than movies generally, so there is that. Still, I doubt this will be anywhere as good as it apparently wants to be. Also, it has the word "November" in it's title, yet is coming out in December...?
Bullet Head
Dec 8th(limited); R
Haha, this looks like the kind of movie I'd enjoy no matter how bad it is. Adrien Brody is always a plus. And there's also Antonio Banderas and John Malkovich... and some kind of monster that looks like a large zombie dog or something. Nice.
Star Wars: The Last Jedi
Dec 15th; PG-13
(Why no "Episode VIII" in the title??) Who needs any other movies this month -- we have Star Wars!! I'm very excited for this of course but also a bit nervous. I think because after Ep 7 we now have expectations about this trilogy so the stakes have been raised. From the beginning I was most excited at the prospect of Ep 8, because I expected it would take a darker turn like Ep 5 did (though hopefully it will be less similar plot-wise than 7 was to 4) and because I have loved all of Rian Johnson's movie's so far. He has excellent storytelling instincts I think, and always puts emotional umph into his films, while still making them super enjoyable and entertaining. But directors like him have been stifled by big studios before. Star Wars is only part his baby now, and he can't possibly have full control. But it may very well work out perfectly, so here's to that! The trailer looks gorgeous and intriguing... all the great new characters are here... the hype is hyping... I'm ready!
Beyond Skyline
Dec 15th(limited); R
This month's obligatory non-mainstream scifi movie apparently is this -- starring Frank Grillo. Apparently a sequel, or just set in the same universe as another movie I guess. It actually looks like a bigger film than most I mention, with some creative and well-animated aliens. Plus Frank Grillo does the tough-guy action hero very well. It probably won't be great, but it does look like pretty solid entertainment, and not the sort of thing that only a scifi-obsessed person would be interested to see. However, it is hard for me to tell, because I'm definitely scifi-obsessed.
Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle
Dec 20th; PG-13
And this is basically the same idea as the above movie: Probably some solid entertainment, and not much more. The only difference is that this is a big mainstream release, which will make all its shortcomings all the more disappointing. I do like the idea -- how they updated it -- but beyond that, it doesn't promise to be much like the Jumanji we know, or very worthwhile on the whole. The Rock, Karen Gillan, Jack Black and Kevin Hart star.
The Greatest Showman
Dec 20th; PG
More light entertainment, but I guess it's more appropriate here, being a musical loosely based on the life of P.T. Barnum, who was... a showman. In the movie, Hugh Jackman plays him, and creates a circus, and it all looks very razzle-dazzle. He's got a supporting cast of Michelle Williams, Zac Efron, Zendaya, and Rebecca Ferguson, and some original songs. If nothing else, it is sure to be entertaining show.
All the Money in the World
Dec 22nd, R
When I went to see Murder on the Orient Express, they played the trailer that had Kevin Spacey in it. This trailer was published two days ago... and now it's Christopher Plummer. I'm kinda wondering why Spacey was cast in the first place, because they had to use makeup to make him look old. Anyway, most of my interest in this movie is because of the last-minute tossing out and replacing, but ignoring that, the movie looks like a good movie. How much of a good movie, I don't know, but I doubt the change-up could have seriously effected the quality. It's not exactly the sort of movie I'd be eager to see unless it has a happy ending, but I certainly am curious. Michelle Williams stars, with Mark Wahlberg.
The Post
Dec 22nd(limited); PG-13
And what would December be without an Oscar-grab movie? Sure, others might also be Oscar-grabs, but this movie is literally nothing else. It ticks the right political boxes, teams up Meryl Streep with Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg, and is so try-hard it's making me uncomfortable for it. I like Spielberg, but boy, not like this. I'll wait for Ready Player One.
Then I caught up on some other 2017 movies I missed in theaters -- Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets, which was better than expected and the most scifi fun I've had all year (review here); and Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales, which was worse than expected with low expectations, and really quite sad. I doubt I'll get around to reviewing it.
Also I forgot to mention it in November, but I also watched Netflix's Punisher, and it was fantastic. Frank Castle in all his jarringly violent glory. I just finished it last night, and it may be the most thoroughly great thing Marvel-Netflix has done. Review on that probably coming soon!
December looks to be slowing down a bit, mainly because I don't have much interest for Oscar-grab season. There's only one must-see for me -- Star Wars, of course, but plenty of others to keep a close eye on too. Are you excited for Star Wars 8? And is there anything else on your radar this month?
The Shape of Water
Dec 1st(limited); R
Sally Hawkins is great, Michael Shannon is great, Guillermo Del Toro is great, and his style of fantasy is great. The trailer is beautiful and unusual, and it looks like the kind of dark and serious fantasy I'd probably love. I won't be seeing it in theaters, but probably will someday. And reviews are saying it's great, so whenever I do see it, it will be with high expectations.
November Criminals
Dec 8th(limited); PG-13
Oh, I thought that after Baby Driver, Ansel Elgort would stick to grown-up movies. This movie screams teen movie that wants to be grown up so that's kinda awkward. It looks like it deals with serious issues, but then teen movies deal with serious issues they rarely do a good job. Based on a YA novel of the same name, which isn't necessarily a bad thing since novels are more likely to have cohesive plots than movies generally, so there is that. Still, I doubt this will be anywhere as good as it apparently wants to be. Also, it has the word "November" in it's title, yet is coming out in December...?
Bullet Head
Dec 8th(limited); R
Haha, this looks like the kind of movie I'd enjoy no matter how bad it is. Adrien Brody is always a plus. And there's also Antonio Banderas and John Malkovich... and some kind of monster that looks like a large zombie dog or something. Nice.
Star Wars: The Last Jedi
Dec 15th; PG-13
(Why no "Episode VIII" in the title??) Who needs any other movies this month -- we have Star Wars!! I'm very excited for this of course but also a bit nervous. I think because after Ep 7 we now have expectations about this trilogy so the stakes have been raised. From the beginning I was most excited at the prospect of Ep 8, because I expected it would take a darker turn like Ep 5 did (though hopefully it will be less similar plot-wise than 7 was to 4) and because I have loved all of Rian Johnson's movie's so far. He has excellent storytelling instincts I think, and always puts emotional umph into his films, while still making them super enjoyable and entertaining. But directors like him have been stifled by big studios before. Star Wars is only part his baby now, and he can't possibly have full control. But it may very well work out perfectly, so here's to that! The trailer looks gorgeous and intriguing... all the great new characters are here... the hype is hyping... I'm ready!
Beyond Skyline
Dec 15th(limited); R
This month's obligatory non-mainstream scifi movie apparently is this -- starring Frank Grillo. Apparently a sequel, or just set in the same universe as another movie I guess. It actually looks like a bigger film than most I mention, with some creative and well-animated aliens. Plus Frank Grillo does the tough-guy action hero very well. It probably won't be great, but it does look like pretty solid entertainment, and not the sort of thing that only a scifi-obsessed person would be interested to see. However, it is hard for me to tell, because I'm definitely scifi-obsessed.
Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle
Dec 20th; PG-13
And this is basically the same idea as the above movie: Probably some solid entertainment, and not much more. The only difference is that this is a big mainstream release, which will make all its shortcomings all the more disappointing. I do like the idea -- how they updated it -- but beyond that, it doesn't promise to be much like the Jumanji we know, or very worthwhile on the whole. The Rock, Karen Gillan, Jack Black and Kevin Hart star.
The Greatest Showman
Dec 20th; PG
More light entertainment, but I guess it's more appropriate here, being a musical loosely based on the life of P.T. Barnum, who was... a showman. In the movie, Hugh Jackman plays him, and creates a circus, and it all looks very razzle-dazzle. He's got a supporting cast of Michelle Williams, Zac Efron, Zendaya, and Rebecca Ferguson, and some original songs. If nothing else, it is sure to be entertaining show.
All the Money in the World
Dec 22nd, R
When I went to see Murder on the Orient Express, they played the trailer that had Kevin Spacey in it. This trailer was published two days ago... and now it's Christopher Plummer. I'm kinda wondering why Spacey was cast in the first place, because they had to use makeup to make him look old. Anyway, most of my interest in this movie is because of the last-minute tossing out and replacing, but ignoring that, the movie looks like a good movie. How much of a good movie, I don't know, but I doubt the change-up could have seriously effected the quality. It's not exactly the sort of movie I'd be eager to see unless it has a happy ending, but I certainly am curious. Michelle Williams stars, with Mark Wahlberg.
The Post
Dec 22nd(limited); PG-13
And what would December be without an Oscar-grab movie? Sure, others might also be Oscar-grabs, but this movie is literally nothing else. It ticks the right political boxes, teams up Meryl Streep with Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg, and is so try-hard it's making me uncomfortable for it. I like Spielberg, but boy, not like this. I'll wait for Ready Player One.
Friday, June 16, 2017
Logan
Spoiler-free.
I finally got the Blu-ray and watched Hugh Jackman's last run as The Wolverine, and I am here to confirm that it is indeed an R-rated superhero film. I also believe that it is an ideal R-rated superhero film. Mainly because it doesn't stop at being R-rated, and it doesn't stop at being a superhero film. It understands that those things alone cannot a great film make, and like its hero, it does not stop.
I always find that the best superhero flicks are what you might call "superhero plus." Examples: Guardians of the Galaxy; superheroes plus space opera. Ant-Man; superhero plus heist film. Captain America: The Winter Soldier; superhero, spy film. It's a good way to make your comic book film stand out in this tired and over-saturated market, and the further you veer from "superhero" to "plus" the more naturally original the film appears to be. And now, here's Logan -- a western film, in everything except the almost throwaway fact that Logan is a superhuman mutant.
He's not even invulnerable anymore as the Adamantium that makes up his skeleton is leeching into his body and poisoning him, slowing his healing abilities and sticking him with a bad cough to boot. Now he limps through the film, scarred, weary, and haggard. Almost not even recognizable anymore -- almost. Logan is so different from what we've seen of him before, but truly it's more as if we've never seen him accurately before now, and this bitter, grimacing old man with bloodshot eyes is the true and honest version of Logan -- one the PG-13 movies were forced to hide from us. Even in those toned-down flicks Hugh Jackman has never taken a misstep playing his iconic character, and with his dedication everything he does as Logan is guaranteed to be optimal; here, even going so much darker and deeper and pushing the boundaries further than ever, it is no different. He is Logan, through and through. Maybe I should feel more impressed as it is an impressive performance, but it is also no surprise.
I was impressed, however, by Sir Patrick Stewart's equally aged and reshaped Charles Xavier. My logical mind knows he is a superbly talented actor perfectly capable of complex performances. The rest of me completely bought that there was a feeble old man with dementia on the screen. With the combination of the performance with the makeup Charles is suddenly so much more than the honestly flat and uninteresting straightforward mentor he used to be. Now he is sad and complicated and a magnificent mixture of harrowing and funny. The all-important make-or-break element of the film was the little girl Laura, played by Dafne Keen. With great screen presence she pulls off the part from the beginning, and from there only continues to add to the impressiveness as more about the character is continually revealed. The animalistic intensity of her fighting -- on par with Wolverine's -- is excellent and sells the risky character.
The dark horse for favorite character is the villain, Pierce, played by Boyd Holbrook. In such a hard and intense film is nice to have that one character who's determined to enjoy himself, and that's what this guy is. He likes the sound of his voice, and he likes his mechanical hand, and he likes his villainous position, and he's out there to make the most of it all. This might be an apt description of the actor as well -- and I'd say they both succeed. At any rate he's an easy-going, casually antagonistic kind of character that finds a delightful balance between charming and sinister. I found myself looking forward to his appearances and growing happier whenever he survived another scene. When Richard E. Grant showed up playing his superior, I was afraid he'd be replaced as the main villain and forgotten, but that doesn't happen, though Grant gets his time to shine creepily as well. Also worth a mention is Stephen Merchant as Caliban. I imagine I'd appreciate the part more if I knew the character previously, but the value of his inclusion was not lost on me.
With no rating holding back the filmmakers from exploring the deep recesses of these characters and shaping a unique heart out of the mature fodder, the film's themes and emotional focus take on unusual shape. It is, again, much more western than anything else, and the issues at hand follow that theme. Though in our world the story wouldn't make news, the stakes -- personal, fleshed out, and tightly focused on -- seem huge. Bigger and more important even, than the traditional end-of-the-world plots of the X-Men of yore. The destruction is small but the impact is massive. And you don't need an R-rating to get that, but it certainly does seem to come naturally with it. Kudos to the writers and director James Mangold for knowing what the movie needed to be, and sticking with it to the end.
The easiest way the film could have been distracted was in the action. Instead, it may have been its greatest strength. Firstly they really make up for the seven movies where Wolverine wasn't allowed to stab people in the head. I never knew how much he needed to do that until now. Then they also remember to match the action with film's scale and emotional center. Small destruction; massive impact. Check. Also not forgotten is the film's most basic roots -- superhero film; western film. With those genres it's the action that sells and they deliver on those promises. It's something they needed to do, but it's also obviously something they wanted to do. The action sequences and fighting -- while always connected to the plot in significant ways -- are hugely important elements, and great care and attention was given to them. Each sequence was unique. The choreography was spectacular. And the filming captured it deftly for maximum entertainment.
That goes for the whole movie in fact; the cinematography added beautiful interest to a story that on paper might give the impression of being boring. But with the characters there's always something to think about, with the cinematography there's always something to look at, and with the action there's always something to be wowed by. I have one grievance and that was the brief nudity -- in a movie that was otherwise refreshingly R out of necessity, it was irritatingly unnecessary. Otherwise the filmmakers stayed on target to keep the movie focused on what was important, and the result is a structured and concise work of art, moody, gritty, and full of heart -- with a massive impact. Logan and Hugh finally get the movie they deserve. Our happy fate is that we get to watch it.
I finally got the Blu-ray and watched Hugh Jackman's last run as The Wolverine, and I am here to confirm that it is indeed an R-rated superhero film. I also believe that it is an ideal R-rated superhero film. Mainly because it doesn't stop at being R-rated, and it doesn't stop at being a superhero film. It understands that those things alone cannot a great film make, and like its hero, it does not stop.
 |
| My copy also came with a black and white "noir" version. Looking forward to watching that. |
I always find that the best superhero flicks are what you might call "superhero plus." Examples: Guardians of the Galaxy; superheroes plus space opera. Ant-Man; superhero plus heist film. Captain America: The Winter Soldier; superhero, spy film. It's a good way to make your comic book film stand out in this tired and over-saturated market, and the further you veer from "superhero" to "plus" the more naturally original the film appears to be. And now, here's Logan -- a western film, in everything except the almost throwaway fact that Logan is a superhuman mutant.
He's not even invulnerable anymore as the Adamantium that makes up his skeleton is leeching into his body and poisoning him, slowing his healing abilities and sticking him with a bad cough to boot. Now he limps through the film, scarred, weary, and haggard. Almost not even recognizable anymore -- almost. Logan is so different from what we've seen of him before, but truly it's more as if we've never seen him accurately before now, and this bitter, grimacing old man with bloodshot eyes is the true and honest version of Logan -- one the PG-13 movies were forced to hide from us. Even in those toned-down flicks Hugh Jackman has never taken a misstep playing his iconic character, and with his dedication everything he does as Logan is guaranteed to be optimal; here, even going so much darker and deeper and pushing the boundaries further than ever, it is no different. He is Logan, through and through. Maybe I should feel more impressed as it is an impressive performance, but it is also no surprise.
 |
| With the realistic futuristic tech and the fantastic aging makeup, it truly feels like a film from the near future. |
I was impressed, however, by Sir Patrick Stewart's equally aged and reshaped Charles Xavier. My logical mind knows he is a superbly talented actor perfectly capable of complex performances. The rest of me completely bought that there was a feeble old man with dementia on the screen. With the combination of the performance with the makeup Charles is suddenly so much more than the honestly flat and uninteresting straightforward mentor he used to be. Now he is sad and complicated and a magnificent mixture of harrowing and funny. The all-important make-or-break element of the film was the little girl Laura, played by Dafne Keen. With great screen presence she pulls off the part from the beginning, and from there only continues to add to the impressiveness as more about the character is continually revealed. The animalistic intensity of her fighting -- on par with Wolverine's -- is excellent and sells the risky character.
 |
| And with how reliable Jackman is, and how necessary the R was, she was probably the film's only risk. Paid off. |
The dark horse for favorite character is the villain, Pierce, played by Boyd Holbrook. In such a hard and intense film is nice to have that one character who's determined to enjoy himself, and that's what this guy is. He likes the sound of his voice, and he likes his mechanical hand, and he likes his villainous position, and he's out there to make the most of it all. This might be an apt description of the actor as well -- and I'd say they both succeed. At any rate he's an easy-going, casually antagonistic kind of character that finds a delightful balance between charming and sinister. I found myself looking forward to his appearances and growing happier whenever he survived another scene. When Richard E. Grant showed up playing his superior, I was afraid he'd be replaced as the main villain and forgotten, but that doesn't happen, though Grant gets his time to shine creepily as well. Also worth a mention is Stephen Merchant as Caliban. I imagine I'd appreciate the part more if I knew the character previously, but the value of his inclusion was not lost on me.
 |
| Just keep on rockin' that neck tattoo, bud! (between starting this review and finishing it, I've seen him in two more movies, but no I'm not obsessed why would you think that.) |
With no rating holding back the filmmakers from exploring the deep recesses of these characters and shaping a unique heart out of the mature fodder, the film's themes and emotional focus take on unusual shape. It is, again, much more western than anything else, and the issues at hand follow that theme. Though in our world the story wouldn't make news, the stakes -- personal, fleshed out, and tightly focused on -- seem huge. Bigger and more important even, than the traditional end-of-the-world plots of the X-Men of yore. The destruction is small but the impact is massive. And you don't need an R-rating to get that, but it certainly does seem to come naturally with it. Kudos to the writers and director James Mangold for knowing what the movie needed to be, and sticking with it to the end.
The easiest way the film could have been distracted was in the action. Instead, it may have been its greatest strength. Firstly they really make up for the seven movies where Wolverine wasn't allowed to stab people in the head. I never knew how much he needed to do that until now. Then they also remember to match the action with film's scale and emotional center. Small destruction; massive impact. Check. Also not forgotten is the film's most basic roots -- superhero film; western film. With those genres it's the action that sells and they deliver on those promises. It's something they needed to do, but it's also obviously something they wanted to do. The action sequences and fighting -- while always connected to the plot in significant ways -- are hugely important elements, and great care and attention was given to them. Each sequence was unique. The choreography was spectacular. And the filming captured it deftly for maximum entertainment.
 |
| Visually unique and beautiful, but perhaps more importantly, visually memorable. |
That goes for the whole movie in fact; the cinematography added beautiful interest to a story that on paper might give the impression of being boring. But with the characters there's always something to think about, with the cinematography there's always something to look at, and with the action there's always something to be wowed by. I have one grievance and that was the brief nudity -- in a movie that was otherwise refreshingly R out of necessity, it was irritatingly unnecessary. Otherwise the filmmakers stayed on target to keep the movie focused on what was important, and the result is a structured and concise work of art, moody, gritty, and full of heart -- with a massive impact. Logan and Hugh finally get the movie they deserve. Our happy fate is that we get to watch it.
Wednesday, March 1, 2017
Upcoming Movie Roundup - March
In February, The Lego Batman Movie turned out to be every bit the awesome must-see flick for every age that its predecessor was! Read about how awesome and hilarious I thought it was here! No other movies tempted me last month, but I am watching Legion on FX, and so far it is quite excellent.
March marks the beginning of 2017's highly anticipated movie lineup, with big release after big release. I'm sure I'll get to the theater at least once! What looks good to you? Are any of your most anticipated 2017 movies releasing this month?
Logan
Mar 3rd, R
Hugh Jackman's Wolverine has always been my favorite thing about the X-Men franchise, but his solo movies have never been quite what they should be. Maybe with Logan, his run will end with changing that! This one's already got excellent reviews from critics, and they finally buckled down and gave him an R-rated movie -- something I am all for on the counts of violence and language if the story calls for it. Annoyingly, there is also brief nudity, and while it's a good sign that the movie isn't filled with nudity and sex, that brief inclusion will almost certainly cause my family to wait for the DVD.
Before I Fall
Mar 3rd, PG-13
Am I a sucker for "Groundhog Day" movies? Yes, yes I am. This one mixes the fun gimmick with high school drama for a popular girl who lives the same day over and over -- ending each day dying in a car crash -- and begins to wonder if her life really is as great as she thinks. It's unlikely that this movie will reach the great levels of Groundhog Day, or even Edge of Tomorrow, but that doesn't at all mean that it's not going to be a worthwhile movie in its own right. I hope it will be, and I'm curious to see for myself.
Table 19
Mar 3rd, PG-13
Cute and possibly cynical dramedy with possible romance starring Anna Kendrick, anyone? Yeah, this is one of those chick-flicks that just seems like a no-brianer, with the charm and quirky appeal the trailer exhibits.
Kong: Skull Island
Mar 10th, PG-13
Look -- I'm under no delusion about this movie that it'll be anything but ridiculous. The first trailers tried to evoke some kind of seriousness and depth, but this one seems most honest. Ridiculous. Stylish, action-packed, star-studded ridiculousness, and as long as it's fun -- which seems a promising possibility -- I'm on board for the adventure! Seriously, this is the style of movie that Kong was meant for.
Beauty and the Beast
Mar 17th, PG
Full disclosure: I still think the animation of the Beast's face looks bad. Like, I'm worried about how much of a distraction it'll be bad. Otherwise, I'm excited this live action version of the story. Emma Watson looks good; Dan Stevens will hopefully be worth casting for the little time his face will be on screen; and I can already sense that Luke Evan's Gaston will the scene-stealing favorite. There's a part of me that doubts the film will be able to match the latest Cinderella's grand perfection, but as long as it can recapture even a spark of the magic of the original -- which I think it has based on the trailer -- everything should be great.
The Belko Experiment
Mar 17th, R
Normally this is the kind of movie where I'd look at the trailer, scoff pleasantly, move along, and watch it on TV three years later. However, this one was co-written by James Gunn, and that brings a lot of interest. Especially after I heard that the film has a lot of comedy (which you can't tell from this trailer) plus a cast full of familiar faces including John Gallagher Jr. in the apparent lead, and Sean Gunn and Michael Rooker. So I still might not see it until it hits the TV, or who knows. But now it's on my list.
Power Rangers
Mar 24th, PG-13
Tee-hee. I feel a little bit silly for including this one, especially since I can't claim nostalgia, having never watched the TV show, but I dunno, it looks fun. Cheesy, cliched, and probably too young for me, but fun. There's just something classically appealing about actioners like this, that don't feel the need to take risks and break new ground but to just do what works. Or maybe what doesn't work because this has all the earmarks of a movie with a good first act, a crumbling second act, and a distracted, directionless third that ruins everything. If that's not the case, I'll probably watch it. But to be honest, I'll probably watch it anyway.
Life
Mar 24th, NR
What, Christmas already? I love space travel movies; space travel movies that are subtly science fiction, using science to speculate into the near future, and most importantly space scifi movies where everything steadily plummets into crazy, terrifying horror. Yep, it appears to be Christmas. This one stars Ryan Reynolds, the lovely Rebecca Ferguson, Jake Gyllenhaal, and Hirouki Sanada (of Sunshine, a favorite of the sub-genre). It's not rated yet so we'll see about that, but I have high hopes. Very, very, extraterrestrially high.
Ghost in the Shell
Mar 31st, NR
This one definitely rides on what the rating ends up being. If it's appropriate enough, I'll be very interested, mainly just for the world-building aspect, which looks crazy and extremely unique -- although I suppose it isn't so much for people who watched the anime. Scarlett Johansson stars. It looks very stylish and not a little creepy.
The Zookeeper's Wife
Mar 31st, PG-13
A war drama rounds out the genres of the month. This one stars Jessica Chastain and tells the true story of the proprietor of a Polish zoo and his wife in 1939 who harbor Jews in the zoo and their home as Poland is invaded by Nazis. Daniel Bruhl also stars as the main villain. Jessica Chastain is the main appeal with this for me, but the unique and true aspects of it also seem to indicate an interesting historic film. Keeping an eye on this one.
Iron Fist
Premieres Mar 17th on Netflix
As great as this month looks movie-wise, there is nothing I am more excited for than Iron Fist. I have not been this excited for a Netflix Marvel show since the first season of Daredevil. I have high hopes, but not quite as much confidence. I know the potential is there, but if they are just getting this out there so the Defenders can happen things might not be as great as they should be. I will be very upset if that happens, because with what I can see of the characters and the premise, this show could be a new favorite of mine easily. I've got a lot riding on this -- don't let me down, Marvel!
March marks the beginning of 2017's highly anticipated movie lineup, with big release after big release. I'm sure I'll get to the theater at least once! What looks good to you? Are any of your most anticipated 2017 movies releasing this month?
Logan
Mar 3rd, R
Hugh Jackman's Wolverine has always been my favorite thing about the X-Men franchise, but his solo movies have never been quite what they should be. Maybe with Logan, his run will end with changing that! This one's already got excellent reviews from critics, and they finally buckled down and gave him an R-rated movie -- something I am all for on the counts of violence and language if the story calls for it. Annoyingly, there is also brief nudity, and while it's a good sign that the movie isn't filled with nudity and sex, that brief inclusion will almost certainly cause my family to wait for the DVD.
Before I Fall
Mar 3rd, PG-13
Am I a sucker for "Groundhog Day" movies? Yes, yes I am. This one mixes the fun gimmick with high school drama for a popular girl who lives the same day over and over -- ending each day dying in a car crash -- and begins to wonder if her life really is as great as she thinks. It's unlikely that this movie will reach the great levels of Groundhog Day, or even Edge of Tomorrow, but that doesn't at all mean that it's not going to be a worthwhile movie in its own right. I hope it will be, and I'm curious to see for myself.
Table 19
Mar 3rd, PG-13
Cute and possibly cynical dramedy with possible romance starring Anna Kendrick, anyone? Yeah, this is one of those chick-flicks that just seems like a no-brianer, with the charm and quirky appeal the trailer exhibits.
Kong: Skull Island
Mar 10th, PG-13
Look -- I'm under no delusion about this movie that it'll be anything but ridiculous. The first trailers tried to evoke some kind of seriousness and depth, but this one seems most honest. Ridiculous. Stylish, action-packed, star-studded ridiculousness, and as long as it's fun -- which seems a promising possibility -- I'm on board for the adventure! Seriously, this is the style of movie that Kong was meant for.
Beauty and the Beast
Mar 17th, PG
Full disclosure: I still think the animation of the Beast's face looks bad. Like, I'm worried about how much of a distraction it'll be bad. Otherwise, I'm excited this live action version of the story. Emma Watson looks good; Dan Stevens will hopefully be worth casting for the little time his face will be on screen; and I can already sense that Luke Evan's Gaston will the scene-stealing favorite. There's a part of me that doubts the film will be able to match the latest Cinderella's grand perfection, but as long as it can recapture even a spark of the magic of the original -- which I think it has based on the trailer -- everything should be great.
The Belko Experiment
Mar 17th, R
Normally this is the kind of movie where I'd look at the trailer, scoff pleasantly, move along, and watch it on TV three years later. However, this one was co-written by James Gunn, and that brings a lot of interest. Especially after I heard that the film has a lot of comedy (which you can't tell from this trailer) plus a cast full of familiar faces including John Gallagher Jr. in the apparent lead, and Sean Gunn and Michael Rooker. So I still might not see it until it hits the TV, or who knows. But now it's on my list.
Power Rangers
Mar 24th, PG-13
Tee-hee. I feel a little bit silly for including this one, especially since I can't claim nostalgia, having never watched the TV show, but I dunno, it looks fun. Cheesy, cliched, and probably too young for me, but fun. There's just something classically appealing about actioners like this, that don't feel the need to take risks and break new ground but to just do what works. Or maybe what doesn't work because this has all the earmarks of a movie with a good first act, a crumbling second act, and a distracted, directionless third that ruins everything. If that's not the case, I'll probably watch it. But to be honest, I'll probably watch it anyway.
Life
Mar 24th, NR
What, Christmas already? I love space travel movies; space travel movies that are subtly science fiction, using science to speculate into the near future, and most importantly space scifi movies where everything steadily plummets into crazy, terrifying horror. Yep, it appears to be Christmas. This one stars Ryan Reynolds, the lovely Rebecca Ferguson, Jake Gyllenhaal, and Hirouki Sanada (of Sunshine, a favorite of the sub-genre). It's not rated yet so we'll see about that, but I have high hopes. Very, very, extraterrestrially high.
Ghost in the Shell
Mar 31st, NR
This one definitely rides on what the rating ends up being. If it's appropriate enough, I'll be very interested, mainly just for the world-building aspect, which looks crazy and extremely unique -- although I suppose it isn't so much for people who watched the anime. Scarlett Johansson stars. It looks very stylish and not a little creepy.
The Zookeeper's Wife
Mar 31st, PG-13
A war drama rounds out the genres of the month. This one stars Jessica Chastain and tells the true story of the proprietor of a Polish zoo and his wife in 1939 who harbor Jews in the zoo and their home as Poland is invaded by Nazis. Daniel Bruhl also stars as the main villain. Jessica Chastain is the main appeal with this for me, but the unique and true aspects of it also seem to indicate an interesting historic film. Keeping an eye on this one.
Iron Fist
Premieres Mar 17th on Netflix
As great as this month looks movie-wise, there is nothing I am more excited for than Iron Fist. I have not been this excited for a Netflix Marvel show since the first season of Daredevil. I have high hopes, but not quite as much confidence. I know the potential is there, but if they are just getting this out there so the Defenders can happen things might not be as great as they should be. I will be very upset if that happens, because with what I can see of the characters and the premise, this show could be a new favorite of mine easily. I've got a lot riding on this -- don't let me down, Marvel!
Saturday, October 15, 2016
X-Men: Apocalypse
Some spoilers... though there's not much to spoil.
I've finally had to admit to myself that I'm just not a fan of the rebooted X-Men franchise. It seems crazy. How could I not like a superhero franchise? That has so many favorite actors in it no less? I look at that cast of the new X-Men films -- particularly this one -- and think there's no way I could possibly not love the movie they all inhabit. Not to mention they all play such cool characters. Yet, here I am again, underwhelmed after an X-Men movie -- and this one more so than ever.
This time Oscar Isaac steps up to the plate as the villain: Apocalypse, an ancient, powerful being -- the original mutant, who had been slumbering for the past couple thousand years, but has now been awakened. (Side point: was it actually Rose Byrne's fault he woke up? Cause those men were doing the chanting, but it seemed like to me it only worked because she forgot to close the door and sunlight got in. Like, they've been going down there and chanting daily for hundreds of years, and this is the first time someone accidentally left the door open? Anyway...) Apocalypse doesn't exactly like how earth has changed since he ruled it and means to do some spring cleansing before he takes office.
The most disappointing aspect of this film might actually be that Oscar Isaac is unrecognizable in his role. And I get that in his normal state he doesn't exactly exude the kind of power and menace a character called Apocalypse would require, but seriously, covering his face in prosthetics and digitally changing his voice was not the answer. Cast someone else. Or just let him act. I spent the whole movie trying to recognize him (knowing that it was him!) and it only came through in a brief glimmer one time -- in his voice. He didn't even get to do any acting; he just delivered a bunch of speeches in a deep, digitally altered dramatic voice. Anyone could have done it! The final blow was of course that he didn't have the superpower to grow into a giant like the trailer implied. Turns out the most powerful mutant ever needs others to do everything for him, and can't take on more than one person at a time in a fight.
Out of all three of the rebooted X-Men films, this one is oddly the least epic and on the smallest scale. That really surprised me. It's called Apocalypse; shouldn't the scale be, I don't know, apocalyptic? The final battle took place within about a square block -- making the Avengers and Superman jealous I'm sure -- and was so sadly static. It bothers me when superheroes destroy entire cities carelessly, but at least other films do a lot of moving around to produce the destruction. Here, we have the worst of both worlds, with Erik just sitting there and whoom -- everything's destroyed. Then they just kick back and have a battle that would have done very little damage otherwise.
That's the brunt of my complaining. Then there's a few things I'm more neutral to, and a few things I liked. On the neutral front come Charles and Erik. They're the main characters, but they never have interested me much as such. I like Michael Fassbender and I like what was done with the character of Charles under James McAvoy in this film, but it really seems like they're only the main characters because Hugh Jackman only gets a cameo. X-Men films are best when they're led by Wolverine, and that's a fact. So the movie spends a lot of time focusing on Charles and Erik, doing the same things they've always done, and while it's not exactly bad, (except for that super unlucky accident that started Erik up on his "villain or no?" arc yet again -- that earned a hearty "come on!" from me) it's not exactly compelling to me either.
What I did find compelling was, amazingly, one of the things I was most looking forward to. That is, Tye Sheridan playing Scott/Cyclops and Kodi Smit-McPhee playing Kurt/Nightcrawler. I was looking forward to them because they're talented actors and since I've already enjoyed the older versions of the characters, I thought it would be neat to see them take the parts. I underestimated how good this aspect would actually be. Firstly, Tye Sheridan was perfect casting for Scott. I actually saw James Marsden in him, like he could actually grow up into him. Characterization could have used so much more, but at least that's a testament to how much potential he had.
And Kurt was even better. He got a small arc, but it was complete and interesting. And seriously, the kid is so charming. He was by far the funniest character (even though Quicksilver was there) and had that adorable naivete and a tragic but unexploited backstory. Right now I just wish this had been like a teen comedy where Scott, Kurt, Jean, and friends do typical high school things with a super-powered twist and then in the end have to go save the day like they do (in the best part of the movie I might add) and that's it. I would watch the heck out of that movie!
I should mention while I'm on the subject that Sophie Turner as Jean Grey is very good too. I've never felt the biggest connection with the character, but this version of her is sympathetic and as good as ever. Also Evan Peters as Quicksilver; the problem of his being too powerful to participate in the climax they cut off at the pass, but then they had to backtrack a little, because they didn't want him to actually tell Erik he's his son? Whatever. I still like the characterization, but his big scene felt very much like "Quicksilver Saves the Day: The Sequel." It was bigger, and longer, but by no means better.
It's a strange day when there's a movie starring Jennifer Lawrence and Nicholas Hoult and I spend all my time talking about everyone else, but as cool as these two are, they spend this movie treading water so there's not much to say. It's also pretty sad that the politics of the X-Men movies is usually what annoys me, yet this one had next to none and I didn't like the film any better. My overall experience was just enjoying the characters as they came in small doses -- particularly the Scott/Jean/Kurt trio -- being mildly bored in between, and then being underwhelmed by the smallness of the ending. There wasn't a whole lot to hate, and neither was there a whole lot to love.
Since I'm big on characters, the film manages to tip to the positive side. The plot in uninspired, and a lot of characters were only there because they could be, or because it is expected, but there was enough that was worthwhile to bring the rest of the film along with it. So I guess I'm not an X-Men fan, but right now, that's working out for me. I can still enjoy what I can out of the films, but I'm not invested enough to care when there's failings. The X-Men -- the characters and the talent that portrays them -- deserve better films than ones like this, but until they get them, I'll be taking them as I can for what they are.
 |
| "What does this button do?" "That makes the movie more interesting. Never push that button Hank." |
This time Oscar Isaac steps up to the plate as the villain: Apocalypse, an ancient, powerful being -- the original mutant, who had been slumbering for the past couple thousand years, but has now been awakened. (Side point: was it actually Rose Byrne's fault he woke up? Cause those men were doing the chanting, but it seemed like to me it only worked because she forgot to close the door and sunlight got in. Like, they've been going down there and chanting daily for hundreds of years, and this is the first time someone accidentally left the door open? Anyway...) Apocalypse doesn't exactly like how earth has changed since he ruled it and means to do some spring cleansing before he takes office.
 |
| The only thing he really has is good persuasive skills, to convince people to work for him. |
Out of all three of the rebooted X-Men films, this one is oddly the least epic and on the smallest scale. That really surprised me. It's called Apocalypse; shouldn't the scale be, I don't know, apocalyptic? The final battle took place within about a square block -- making the Avengers and Superman jealous I'm sure -- and was so sadly static. It bothers me when superheroes destroy entire cities carelessly, but at least other films do a lot of moving around to produce the destruction. Here, we have the worst of both worlds, with Erik just sitting there and whoom -- everything's destroyed. Then they just kick back and have a battle that would have done very little damage otherwise.
That's the brunt of my complaining. Then there's a few things I'm more neutral to, and a few things I liked. On the neutral front come Charles and Erik. They're the main characters, but they never have interested me much as such. I like Michael Fassbender and I like what was done with the character of Charles under James McAvoy in this film, but it really seems like they're only the main characters because Hugh Jackman only gets a cameo. X-Men films are best when they're led by Wolverine, and that's a fact. So the movie spends a lot of time focusing on Charles and Erik, doing the same things they've always done, and while it's not exactly bad, (except for that super unlucky accident that started Erik up on his "villain or no?" arc yet again -- that earned a hearty "come on!" from me) it's not exactly compelling to me either.
 |
| You know, now that the timeline has been changed, you don't need to contrive reasons for Erik to be a bad guy... |
What I did find compelling was, amazingly, one of the things I was most looking forward to. That is, Tye Sheridan playing Scott/Cyclops and Kodi Smit-McPhee playing Kurt/Nightcrawler. I was looking forward to them because they're talented actors and since I've already enjoyed the older versions of the characters, I thought it would be neat to see them take the parts. I underestimated how good this aspect would actually be. Firstly, Tye Sheridan was perfect casting for Scott. I actually saw James Marsden in him, like he could actually grow up into him. Characterization could have used so much more, but at least that's a testament to how much potential he had.
And Kurt was even better. He got a small arc, but it was complete and interesting. And seriously, the kid is so charming. He was by far the funniest character (even though Quicksilver was there) and had that adorable naivete and a tragic but unexploited backstory. Right now I just wish this had been like a teen comedy where Scott, Kurt, Jean, and friends do typical high school things with a super-powered twist and then in the end have to go save the day like they do (in the best part of the movie I might add) and that's it. I would watch the heck out of that movie!
 |
| The trio. Why couldn't they be the movie's main characters? |
I should mention while I'm on the subject that Sophie Turner as Jean Grey is very good too. I've never felt the biggest connection with the character, but this version of her is sympathetic and as good as ever. Also Evan Peters as Quicksilver; the problem of his being too powerful to participate in the climax they cut off at the pass, but then they had to backtrack a little, because they didn't want him to actually tell Erik he's his son? Whatever. I still like the characterization, but his big scene felt very much like "Quicksilver Saves the Day: The Sequel." It was bigger, and longer, but by no means better.
It's a strange day when there's a movie starring Jennifer Lawrence and Nicholas Hoult and I spend all my time talking about everyone else, but as cool as these two are, they spend this movie treading water so there's not much to say. It's also pretty sad that the politics of the X-Men movies is usually what annoys me, yet this one had next to none and I didn't like the film any better. My overall experience was just enjoying the characters as they came in small doses -- particularly the Scott/Jean/Kurt trio -- being mildly bored in between, and then being underwhelmed by the smallness of the ending. There wasn't a whole lot to hate, and neither was there a whole lot to love.
 |
| Quicksilver attempts to save everyone from the movie's wreckage. It's unclear whether he is successful. |
Since I'm big on characters, the film manages to tip to the positive side. The plot in uninspired, and a lot of characters were only there because they could be, or because it is expected, but there was enough that was worthwhile to bring the rest of the film along with it. So I guess I'm not an X-Men fan, but right now, that's working out for me. I can still enjoy what I can out of the films, but I'm not invested enough to care when there's failings. The X-Men -- the characters and the talent that portrays them -- deserve better films than ones like this, but until they get them, I'll be taking them as I can for what they are.
Saturday, March 5, 2016
Chappie
It's the near future, (isn't it always?) and Johannesburg, South Africa is the first city to implement the use of robotics in law enforcement. The police bots are an instant and huge success, but their creator, Deon (Dev Patel) is far from satisfied. He's working on an AI program that he hopes, when installed in a bot, will give it a consciousness, and make is just as human as anyone else. Deon's coworker, Vincent (Hugh Jackman) also designed a police bot, but his was rejected, and he's dangerously envious.
Elsewhere there's an outlaw gang who owe an even scarier gangster a lot of money. In an attempt to get a police bot and program it to work for them, they end up kidnapping Deon and a decommissioned bot that he was sneaking away from the facility to test his AI on. He gives them the bot and installs the AI for them in exchange for some visiting privileges so he can run tests.
Chappie (Sharlto Copley) starts out a complete blank slate and as innocent as a baby, but he learns quickly. Deon wants to test his humanity; the gang's leader Ninja (Ninja) wants to skip the growing up part and get him ready to fight for him; and Yo-Landi (Yo-Landi Visser) quickly adopts a motherly role toward him. A lot of the film is spent in observing Chappie learn and develop under the influence of these three conflicting teachers. Chappie learns how to make art, how to be a cool gangster, what a promise is, and is read bedtime stories. And you can see so much of Copley behind the character; he moves like him and he sounds like him, and Copley gives a dynamic performance with vigor, portraying child-like naivete, genius smarts, and chill badassery all in due turn. No one does this kind of thing like Sharlto Copley.
And no one directs this kind of thing like Neill Blomkamp. This latest film effort from him feels more District 9 than Elysium, and that does it plenty of favors. Set back in the unique world of sci-fi J-burg again, boasting an intriguing premise, but backing it up with a more convincing heart than Elysium offered, Chappie feels less contrived and more just plain out of the ordinary world. There's no shortage of speculative AI films out there, but this one manages to find a new pathway to tread that I found surprisingly enjoyable and entertaining.
I started with low expectations because of the bad rap this movie got. And I see why people may have been disappointed, because Chappie isn't really an action film like it seems to be -- or at least not nearly so much as you might expect. Besides bits and pieces, the movie only ever builds up to one big action sequence at the end, and otherwise spends a questionable amount of time in sentimentality-land. I didn't mind it personally -- I got drawn into the wonder of its themes which were, as wrong as they are in reality, undeniably compelling in fiction. The movie makes sense within itself and is fairly smart as well.
Then whenever we are given action it satisfies and makes up pretty well for anything lacking when Chappie was, say, playing with dolls. Chappie earns its R with confidence and unique style in the violence category (there's also a fair bit of language, and the helpful VidAngel cut out the "brief nudity" bit seamlessly). The movie's action is strikingly intense and its violent imagery makes quite an impact. Plus with the writing slowly building us up to the end, both in plot progression and in character, the slower beginning is forgivable because the movie knew where it wanted to go and got there the way it wanted to. And though you may well complain that it is sometimes silly and sentimental or awkwardly strange, it never fails to get its point across and has plenty of interesting things to say.
I didn't fall in love with this one like I did District 9, but it certainly didn't leave me feeling disappointed and underwhelmed like Elysium did. I was there to be entertained by the winning Blomkamp and Copley duo, and I was, and got a little to think about afterwards as a bonus. My enjoyment varied and wobbled around a little, but ultimately I found the story involving, the characters neat and unique (and not just Chappie -- but mostly Chappie) and the storytelling stylish and memorable. Chappie is a conditionally winning robot-coming-of-age story.
Elsewhere there's an outlaw gang who owe an even scarier gangster a lot of money. In an attempt to get a police bot and program it to work for them, they end up kidnapping Deon and a decommissioned bot that he was sneaking away from the facility to test his AI on. He gives them the bot and installs the AI for them in exchange for some visiting privileges so he can run tests.
 |
| The result is Chappie. |
Chappie (Sharlto Copley) starts out a complete blank slate and as innocent as a baby, but he learns quickly. Deon wants to test his humanity; the gang's leader Ninja (Ninja) wants to skip the growing up part and get him ready to fight for him; and Yo-Landi (Yo-Landi Visser) quickly adopts a motherly role toward him. A lot of the film is spent in observing Chappie learn and develop under the influence of these three conflicting teachers. Chappie learns how to make art, how to be a cool gangster, what a promise is, and is read bedtime stories. And you can see so much of Copley behind the character; he moves like him and he sounds like him, and Copley gives a dynamic performance with vigor, portraying child-like naivete, genius smarts, and chill badassery all in due turn. No one does this kind of thing like Sharlto Copley.
And no one directs this kind of thing like Neill Blomkamp. This latest film effort from him feels more District 9 than Elysium, and that does it plenty of favors. Set back in the unique world of sci-fi J-burg again, boasting an intriguing premise, but backing it up with a more convincing heart than Elysium offered, Chappie feels less contrived and more just plain out of the ordinary world. There's no shortage of speculative AI films out there, but this one manages to find a new pathway to tread that I found surprisingly enjoyable and entertaining.
 |
| He's just a robot in photos, but on screen he comes alive just as well as a human character can. |
I started with low expectations because of the bad rap this movie got. And I see why people may have been disappointed, because Chappie isn't really an action film like it seems to be -- or at least not nearly so much as you might expect. Besides bits and pieces, the movie only ever builds up to one big action sequence at the end, and otherwise spends a questionable amount of time in sentimentality-land. I didn't mind it personally -- I got drawn into the wonder of its themes which were, as wrong as they are in reality, undeniably compelling in fiction. The movie makes sense within itself and is fairly smart as well.
Then whenever we are given action it satisfies and makes up pretty well for anything lacking when Chappie was, say, playing with dolls. Chappie earns its R with confidence and unique style in the violence category (there's also a fair bit of language, and the helpful VidAngel cut out the "brief nudity" bit seamlessly). The movie's action is strikingly intense and its violent imagery makes quite an impact. Plus with the writing slowly building us up to the end, both in plot progression and in character, the slower beginning is forgivable because the movie knew where it wanted to go and got there the way it wanted to. And though you may well complain that it is sometimes silly and sentimental or awkwardly strange, it never fails to get its point across and has plenty of interesting things to say.
 |
| "Don't laugh, I'm being cool!" (The true reason I liked this movie: everything sounds better in a South African accent.) |
I didn't fall in love with this one like I did District 9, but it certainly didn't leave me feeling disappointed and underwhelmed like Elysium did. I was there to be entertained by the winning Blomkamp and Copley duo, and I was, and got a little to think about afterwards as a bonus. My enjoyment varied and wobbled around a little, but ultimately I found the story involving, the characters neat and unique (and not just Chappie -- but mostly Chappie) and the storytelling stylish and memorable. Chappie is a conditionally winning robot-coming-of-age story.
Thursday, October 1, 2015
Upcoming Movie Roundup - October
Last month went as expected, with a trip to the theater to see The Scorch Trials, which I thoroughly, thoroughly enjoyed, and Before We Go from the comfort of the TV room sofa. October has one huge must-see that I've been waiting for rather desperately for the past two weeks or so, and a couple promising others that may be a good DVD watch sometime. But first things, first...
The Martian
Oct 2nd: PG-13
So much yes. So much. I'm really surprised at myself for how incredibly excited I am for this movie. It's the first movie whose anticipation has actually made me forget about Star Wars 7. Even Rogue Nation only made me temporarily forget after I'd seen it. I wrote a whole post about my high anticipation and expectation levels that you can read here -- but here's the short version: Matt Damon is Mark Watney, an Ares astronaut, who, through an unfortunate series of events is stranded alone on Mars without his crew (Jessica Chastain, Michael Pena, Sebastian Stan, Kate Mara, and Aksel Hennie), without communication, and with food and supplies meant only to last 31 days; he must use his smarts (and real science) to survive. The cast also includes Chiwetel Ejiofor, Sean Bean, and Kristen Wiig. The book was brilliantly smart and thrilling, and the Ridley Scott film promises to be faithful adaptation, and a compelling science-fiction-meets-science-fact adventure. Can. Not. Wait.
Pan
Oct 9th: PG
It looks like a cute, fun, adventurous remake of Peter Pan, and the origin story gives good opportunity to get creative with the story as well. Early reviews coming in are not nearly as positive as I would like, and are turning me off from wanting to see it in theaters, but they're not quite bad enough to keep me from wanting to see it altogether. I just have to see Hugh Jackman being the film's villain Blackbeard, and Garrett Hedlund as the young, not-yet-Captain Hook -- minus the hook (we'll for how long!) I guess I just won't expect too much out of it.
Crimson Peak
Oct 16th: R
If I watched horror movies. I don't, (certainly not this kind) and don't think I could -- even for Tom Hiddleston and Jessica Chastain and Mia Wasikowska -- but this one looks like a real quality horror movie, which is the only kind that ever tempts me in the slightest. And it has such an elegant, beautiful style... but then is so disturbingly creepy. If I watched horror movies... Here's the trailer, but don't watch it -- cause it's scary. :P
Goosebumps
Oct 16th; PG
Okay, I never read any of these books as a kid (perhaps that had something to do with my aversion to horror movies now?) so I don't have any sentimental attachment to this movie, but for some reason I still have a nice, mild interest in this. Of course it looks totally silly and cheesy, but sometimes when it's done right those things can make a movie really fun to just enjoy and laugh at and not really think about. And you need a movie like that every once in a while. Jack Black and Dylan Minnette star.
Bridge of Spies
Oct 16th: PG-13
Steven Spielberg's Cold War drama starring Tom Hanks. So the chances of this being a well-made film are pretty much %100. And well-acted. And well-scored. And dramatic. So this one's really a no-brainer, but I don't currently have any real interest. I love Spielberg's movies, and period dramas are great, and Tom Hanks promises to be as great as ever, but I'm just not too excited about this being more of a political drama war-movie, instead of an more action-centered war-movie. The trailer does show some bits of action, but nothing really big. So I'll just have to wait and see if it really is a straight drama, and if it is, just wait until a war drama is what I want to see!
Suffragette
Oct 23rd(limited); PG-13
Okay, so this movie looks well-made and everything, plus it has a great cast including Carey Mulligan, Meryl Streep, and Helena Bonham Carter, but honestly, it looks like it's absolutely nothing more than propaganda for extreme modern feminism, and that just completely ruins it for me.
Burnt
Oct 23rd(limited); NR
A Bradley Cooper chef movie! This one has quite the supporting cast too -- Sienna Miller, Alicia Vikander, Lily James, Emma Thompson, Daniel Bruhl... It says it's a dramedy, but from the trailer it looks more like pure drama. Still, it's about cooking, and stars Bradly Cooper. It's one of those "wait and see" cases I suppose.
What are your movie plans for this fall month? Tell me in the comments!
The Martian
Oct 2nd: PG-13
So much yes. So much. I'm really surprised at myself for how incredibly excited I am for this movie. It's the first movie whose anticipation has actually made me forget about Star Wars 7. Even Rogue Nation only made me temporarily forget after I'd seen it. I wrote a whole post about my high anticipation and expectation levels that you can read here -- but here's the short version: Matt Damon is Mark Watney, an Ares astronaut, who, through an unfortunate series of events is stranded alone on Mars without his crew (Jessica Chastain, Michael Pena, Sebastian Stan, Kate Mara, and Aksel Hennie), without communication, and with food and supplies meant only to last 31 days; he must use his smarts (and real science) to survive. The cast also includes Chiwetel Ejiofor, Sean Bean, and Kristen Wiig. The book was brilliantly smart and thrilling, and the Ridley Scott film promises to be faithful adaptation, and a compelling science-fiction-meets-science-fact adventure. Can. Not. Wait.
Pan
Oct 9th: PG
It looks like a cute, fun, adventurous remake of Peter Pan, and the origin story gives good opportunity to get creative with the story as well. Early reviews coming in are not nearly as positive as I would like, and are turning me off from wanting to see it in theaters, but they're not quite bad enough to keep me from wanting to see it altogether. I just have to see Hugh Jackman being the film's villain Blackbeard, and Garrett Hedlund as the young, not-yet-Captain Hook -- minus the hook (we'll for how long!) I guess I just won't expect too much out of it.
Crimson Peak
Oct 16th: R
If I watched horror movies. I don't, (certainly not this kind) and don't think I could -- even for Tom Hiddleston and Jessica Chastain and Mia Wasikowska -- but this one looks like a real quality horror movie, which is the only kind that ever tempts me in the slightest. And it has such an elegant, beautiful style... but then is so disturbingly creepy. If I watched horror movies... Here's the trailer, but don't watch it -- cause it's scary. :P
Goosebumps
Oct 16th; PG
Okay, I never read any of these books as a kid (perhaps that had something to do with my aversion to horror movies now?) so I don't have any sentimental attachment to this movie, but for some reason I still have a nice, mild interest in this. Of course it looks totally silly and cheesy, but sometimes when it's done right those things can make a movie really fun to just enjoy and laugh at and not really think about. And you need a movie like that every once in a while. Jack Black and Dylan Minnette star.
Bridge of Spies
Oct 16th: PG-13
Steven Spielberg's Cold War drama starring Tom Hanks. So the chances of this being a well-made film are pretty much %100. And well-acted. And well-scored. And dramatic. So this one's really a no-brainer, but I don't currently have any real interest. I love Spielberg's movies, and period dramas are great, and Tom Hanks promises to be as great as ever, but I'm just not too excited about this being more of a political drama war-movie, instead of an more action-centered war-movie. The trailer does show some bits of action, but nothing really big. So I'll just have to wait and see if it really is a straight drama, and if it is, just wait until a war drama is what I want to see!
Suffragette
Oct 23rd(limited); PG-13
Okay, so this movie looks well-made and everything, plus it has a great cast including Carey Mulligan, Meryl Streep, and Helena Bonham Carter, but honestly, it looks like it's absolutely nothing more than propaganda for extreme modern feminism, and that just completely ruins it for me.
Burnt
Oct 23rd(limited); NR
A Bradley Cooper chef movie! This one has quite the supporting cast too -- Sienna Miller, Alicia Vikander, Lily James, Emma Thompson, Daniel Bruhl... It says it's a dramedy, but from the trailer it looks more like pure drama. Still, it's about cooking, and stars Bradly Cooper. It's one of those "wait and see" cases I suppose.
What are your movie plans for this fall month? Tell me in the comments!
Tuesday, April 7, 2015
Night at the Museum: Secret of the Tomb
Mild Spoilers.
Night at the Museum is back for a third and what seems to be final time for adventures with history come-to-life.
The basic gist of the plot is that the magical tablet that brings museum exhibits to life at night is sick, so the gang travels to The British Museum in search of answers. It's little more than an excuse to get out of the house and go over to London for a change, but who could ever mind that? If there's too much plot, it would take away from all the horsing around, which is the appeal of this franchise anyway.
"The gang" consist of Larry (Ben Stiller) and his son Nick (Skyler Gisondo), Egyptian king Ahkmenrah (Rami Malek), Teddy Roosevelt (Robin Wiliams), the miniature cowboy and Roman solider Jedediah and Octavius (Owen Wilson and Steve Coogan), a monkey, Attila the Hun, Sacajawea, and... a caveman (Ben Stiller... again). It's a big group that could have done with less, but it turns out the large and familiar group is one of the charms of the movie, and to make up for the huge number of favorites who had to be included, only two significant characters hailing from The British Museum are added -- the night guard (Rebel Wilson), and Sir Lancelot (Dan Stevens). Plus Dick Van Dyke returns for a scene, and Ben Kingsley graces us with his presence; as does Ricky Gervais, just, with less grace.
I admit, the main reason I ever got around to seeing this third installment was because of Dan Stevens being Lancelot, and he is probably what I enjoyed most (though not by too much) kinda because he was more interesting than just a gallant knight of the Round Table, and, most importantly, because it was so strange and hilarious to see him doing silly American-style slapstick humor.
All the characters are fun and unique though, and watching them all interact and have fun together was as amusing as it was pointless. And in spite of the large number of them they all had plenty to do. Still the normal guy who holds everything together is Larry, and I liked that they added his son back into the story. Larry is having difficulty with his graduating son who wants to skip college to pursue his dreams, and their relationship added some very welcome real-life depth to all the historical fantasy fun.
Most of the jokes were successfully funny, but they were also mostly played for too long. Killed jokes are funny at the beginning just like any other joke, but they're always dead in the end, no matter how alive they were at first. So you laugh, and then you stop, and then you feel sorry for that poor little joke that didn't deserve such a short life. And then you move on to the next one. One gag that could have gone on as long as it liked though, was Hugh Jackman and Alice Eve's cameos -- hands down best part of the movie. And I actually enjoyed watching Ben Stiller interact with his caveman-self more than I thought I would.
So that's basically it -- a decent, amusing flick where all our favorite fun Night characters going on an adventure overseas to save the world (sorta -- not really) following a simple plot that allowed for maximum fun and silliness. It all wound up very evenly; a quarter was just pure entertaining fun; a quarter was funny gags; another was made up of jokes and fun things that didn't turn out quite right; and the last quarter was surprisingly endearing -- the deeper, sweeter stuff that gave it all a bit meaning.
The Night at the Museum franchise has never been anything more that what it still is with this latest installment -- entertaining, light enjoyment. Not the best adventure you can have for less than $20, but you could do a lot worse hanging out in a non-magical museum at night!
Night at the Museum is back for a third and what seems to be final time for adventures with history come-to-life.
The basic gist of the plot is that the magical tablet that brings museum exhibits to life at night is sick, so the gang travels to The British Museum in search of answers. It's little more than an excuse to get out of the house and go over to London for a change, but who could ever mind that? If there's too much plot, it would take away from all the horsing around, which is the appeal of this franchise anyway.
 |
| The gang. |
"The gang" consist of Larry (Ben Stiller) and his son Nick (Skyler Gisondo), Egyptian king Ahkmenrah (Rami Malek), Teddy Roosevelt (Robin Wiliams), the miniature cowboy and Roman solider Jedediah and Octavius (Owen Wilson and Steve Coogan), a monkey, Attila the Hun, Sacajawea, and... a caveman (Ben Stiller... again). It's a big group that could have done with less, but it turns out the large and familiar group is one of the charms of the movie, and to make up for the huge number of favorites who had to be included, only two significant characters hailing from The British Museum are added -- the night guard (Rebel Wilson), and Sir Lancelot (Dan Stevens). Plus Dick Van Dyke returns for a scene, and Ben Kingsley graces us with his presence; as does Ricky Gervais, just, with less grace.
I admit, the main reason I ever got around to seeing this third installment was because of Dan Stevens being Lancelot, and he is probably what I enjoyed most (though not by too much) kinda because he was more interesting than just a gallant knight of the Round Table, and, most importantly, because it was so strange and hilarious to see him doing silly American-style slapstick humor.
 |
| ...but still playing an old-fashioned British character. Very surreal. Like the blueness of his eyes... |
All the characters are fun and unique though, and watching them all interact and have fun together was as amusing as it was pointless. And in spite of the large number of them they all had plenty to do. Still the normal guy who holds everything together is Larry, and I liked that they added his son back into the story. Larry is having difficulty with his graduating son who wants to skip college to pursue his dreams, and their relationship added some very welcome real-life depth to all the historical fantasy fun.
Most of the jokes were successfully funny, but they were also mostly played for too long. Killed jokes are funny at the beginning just like any other joke, but they're always dead in the end, no matter how alive they were at first. So you laugh, and then you stop, and then you feel sorry for that poor little joke that didn't deserve such a short life. And then you move on to the next one. One gag that could have gone on as long as it liked though, was Hugh Jackman and Alice Eve's cameos -- hands down best part of the movie. And I actually enjoyed watching Ben Stiller interact with his caveman-self more than I thought I would.
 |
| Fun times, fun times... |
So that's basically it -- a decent, amusing flick where all our favorite fun Night characters going on an adventure overseas to save the world (sorta -- not really) following a simple plot that allowed for maximum fun and silliness. It all wound up very evenly; a quarter was just pure entertaining fun; a quarter was funny gags; another was made up of jokes and fun things that didn't turn out quite right; and the last quarter was surprisingly endearing -- the deeper, sweeter stuff that gave it all a bit meaning.
The Night at the Museum franchise has never been anything more that what it still is with this latest installment -- entertaining, light enjoyment. Not the best adventure you can have for less than $20, but you could do a lot worse hanging out in a non-magical museum at night!
Sunday, March 1, 2015
Upcoming Movie Roundup - March
February was another disappointment for 2015. Although I did see Old Fashioned, and appreciated it very much, it wasn't as great as I'd hoped and didn't save the month from flops and disappointments. And on top of that Agent Carter is over. However, March is looking up! If all goes to plan I will be seeing two of these films in the theaters, and there's also a new season of a quality television show that is nothing like Agent Carter, but can perfectly replace it anyway. Is March looking up for you too? What movies will you be seeing?
Chappie
Mar 6th; R
What with the director of District 9, Neill Blomkamp helming this, I wonder if it will be the very first successful attempt at making an "AI" movie where the AI being is actually a good guy. I can't think of a film that has done it satisfactorily yet, so that could be very cool. But besides that, this looks like a very original and interesting movie anyway, with a cast including Hugh Jackman, Sigourney Weaver, and Sharlto Copley proving the voice and moments for Chappie. Still I suppose there's the possibility that this will be more "Elysium" than "District 9" but even that is better than most.
Cinderella
Mar 13th; PG
This is exactly what I need: a classic, cute, silly, beautiful new version of a great, happy, fuss-less classic fairytale, Cinderella. Something for us to lose ourselves in, and help us remember why fairytales are so appealing in the first place. Cast; large and familiar; Lily James and Richard Madden as Ella and the prince; Cate Blanchett as the evil stepmother, Hayley Atwell as Ella's real mother, and Helena Bonham-Carter as her Fairy Godmother; and Holliday Grainger and Sophie McShera as the ugly stepsisters. And Kenneth Branagh directing. This is the most promising thing I see; he really knows how to do old fashioned romance and drama with a beautiful style. I can hardly wait for this one!
Insurgent
Mar 20th; PG-13
#2 in the Divergent series. And I'm not as excited about his one as I would like to be. Mostly, I think, because I didn't like the two sequel books as much as I did the original. Still, there's plenty of potential there, and it might make a better movie than it did a book. Also this is the best installment for my favorite character, Peter, (Miles Teller) and I'm also looking forward to Caleb's (Ansel Elgort) expanded role. Then of course there's Shailene Woodley, and she is solely what makes this series tick as well as it does. Theo James, Kate Winslet, and in fact everyone who didn't die in the last movie return (and some who did -- what are you doing, Ashely Judd?) and there's lot of new characters too. I'm sure I'll be seeing this, but I'm not holding out any hope that it'll be any better than the first.
While We're Young
Mar 27th; R
With The Secret Life of Walter Mitty I suddenly started to like Ben Stiller, particularly his more sincere comedies, so when I ran across this trailer it caught my attention, and it looks like it could be a pretty interesting movie. It's about an older couple (Stiller and Naomi Watts) who start hanging out with a young couple (Amanda Seyfried and Adam Driver) and the interesting results of this unlikely, socially strange friendship.
Broadchurch
Season 2; premieres March 4th 10/9c on BBC America
Broadchurch is the exact opposite of everything Agent Carter was. It is dark, melancholy, serious, creepy and depressing. Hardly and light moments or even a break from the building tension. But it sure is good. Starring the great David Tennant as the disturbed and depressed Detective, and Olivia Coleman as his partner, who after the last season has a husband on trial for murder. (The cast is teaming with Doctor Who alumni; also Arthur Darvill, Jonathan Bailey, and David Bradley.) The reason this can replace Agent Carter, is because the season, James D'Arcy has joined the cast! This trailer suggests (strongly) that he'll be playing a bad guy, but still, it's something.
Chappie
Mar 6th; R
What with the director of District 9, Neill Blomkamp helming this, I wonder if it will be the very first successful attempt at making an "AI" movie where the AI being is actually a good guy. I can't think of a film that has done it satisfactorily yet, so that could be very cool. But besides that, this looks like a very original and interesting movie anyway, with a cast including Hugh Jackman, Sigourney Weaver, and Sharlto Copley proving the voice and moments for Chappie. Still I suppose there's the possibility that this will be more "Elysium" than "District 9" but even that is better than most.
Cinderella
Mar 13th; PG
This is exactly what I need: a classic, cute, silly, beautiful new version of a great, happy, fuss-less classic fairytale, Cinderella. Something for us to lose ourselves in, and help us remember why fairytales are so appealing in the first place. Cast; large and familiar; Lily James and Richard Madden as Ella and the prince; Cate Blanchett as the evil stepmother, Hayley Atwell as Ella's real mother, and Helena Bonham-Carter as her Fairy Godmother; and Holliday Grainger and Sophie McShera as the ugly stepsisters. And Kenneth Branagh directing. This is the most promising thing I see; he really knows how to do old fashioned romance and drama with a beautiful style. I can hardly wait for this one!
Insurgent
Mar 20th; PG-13
#2 in the Divergent series. And I'm not as excited about his one as I would like to be. Mostly, I think, because I didn't like the two sequel books as much as I did the original. Still, there's plenty of potential there, and it might make a better movie than it did a book. Also this is the best installment for my favorite character, Peter, (Miles Teller) and I'm also looking forward to Caleb's (Ansel Elgort) expanded role. Then of course there's Shailene Woodley, and she is solely what makes this series tick as well as it does. Theo James, Kate Winslet, and in fact everyone who didn't die in the last movie return (and some who did -- what are you doing, Ashely Judd?) and there's lot of new characters too. I'm sure I'll be seeing this, but I'm not holding out any hope that it'll be any better than the first.
While We're Young
Mar 27th; R
With The Secret Life of Walter Mitty I suddenly started to like Ben Stiller, particularly his more sincere comedies, so when I ran across this trailer it caught my attention, and it looks like it could be a pretty interesting movie. It's about an older couple (Stiller and Naomi Watts) who start hanging out with a young couple (Amanda Seyfried and Adam Driver) and the interesting results of this unlikely, socially strange friendship.
Broadchurch
Season 2; premieres March 4th 10/9c on BBC America
Broadchurch is the exact opposite of everything Agent Carter was. It is dark, melancholy, serious, creepy and depressing. Hardly and light moments or even a break from the building tension. But it sure is good. Starring the great David Tennant as the disturbed and depressed Detective, and Olivia Coleman as his partner, who after the last season has a husband on trial for murder. (The cast is teaming with Doctor Who alumni; also Arthur Darvill, Jonathan Bailey, and David Bradley.) The reason this can replace Agent Carter, is because the season, James D'Arcy has joined the cast! This trailer suggests (strongly) that he'll be playing a bad guy, but still, it's something.
Wednesday, June 11, 2014
X-Men: Days of Future Past
Mild spoilers within.
After the events of The Last Stand things have gone irrevocably bleak and holocaust-like. The last few surviving X-Men we know come up with a desperate final play, knowing that the events of the present hinged on one particular act in the past, they send someone back with a mission to prevent that act. And luckily for us, there's only one mutant who can survive such a journey, and therefore become the central character of the story -- Wolverine, of course.
And with Hugh Jackman at the center of your movie, especially as this classic character, you cannot go wrong. Never mind that un-killable thing, he's the only character sturdy enough to stay steady and unwavering as the complex plot shifts story lines around in a tangling mess hoping to emerge in the end with something pliable.
The focus is mainly centered on the young Professor X, going through a seriously uncharacteristically dark and difficult time as James McAvoy, and Magneto, Michael Fassbender, regular, normal, not-exactly-evil-but-definitely-misguided-and-rather-obtuse extremely complex and annoyingly likable Magneto. Also Mystique and Beast, characters who only became worthy of main-character attention once Jennifer Lawrence and Nicholas Hoult were cast as them. In fact, if I were to order these characters by importance and screen-time, Lawrence would be second only to Jackman. And with her skill, that's how it should be. Peter Dinklage also gets a turn as a typical, but memorable villain.
The rest are more of side characters, even the greats Ian McKellen and Patrick Stewart, and while their storyline in the future does feel disjointed as you might expect, the characters and their powers are used creatively, make up good scenes and add to the suspense. That one mutant who knew how to think with portals made those scenes worth it singlehandedly.
The plot moved along at a quick and steady pace, and was involving and concise, if, at times a little too weighty and dramatic. It never went too far down that path to cause damage, but I certainly preferred the more fun, upbeat scenes. Like, for an example, every scene featuring Quicksilver. (Evan Peters) His character was brilliantly done, and played for comedy, and now I'm wondering how Age of Ultron could possibly top this with their version of the character. (I'm sure they'll surprise me too.) Anyway, the best of Quicksilver was unarguably the hilarious slow-motion bit where he casually saves the day in a fraction of a second. Unfortunately, he was too super-powered, and had to leave after that so there could be an actual plot for the rest of the film.
And from there the rest of the film not being as balanced with comic relief veered over into seriousness, but didn't have sufficient content to ground it. It was still action-packed, sharp, clean, sensible, and filled with fine performances, but it seemed to all add up to nothing we haven't seen four or five times already, just with seriously cooler special effects -- and awesomer actors -- and those really wide 70's collars. Which, I suppose, makes it all worth seeing again doesn't it?
There was only one thing that really bothered me; lack of momentum in the characters. The character arcs were all more like circles because everyone got their due development, and it was all great, but at the end none show any actual progress. With the exception of Charles, who did have a marked change in character from beginning to end -- but not from end of First Class to the end here, which is the same difference.
All these things make me believe that this film sole purpose was to be a connecting piece to combine the old and the new of the franchise into one, so they can continue from there on a new path. And that it does fantastically well, but the side effect is that it doesn't stand alone very well. As a piece of the franchise it's arguably the best yet, crafted well and with few flaws, and certainly succeeds in pulling the franchise out of a very deep hole. I honestly think it could have been more ambitious though, to band together and move forward into the future it creates simultaneously. It doesn't reach so high, but everything it does endeavor to do it succeeds in doing convincingly, and is well past a worthy installment for both sides of the franchise; as it sets the stage for a brand new future.
 |
| The X-Men attempt time travel. Trippy. |
After the events of The Last Stand things have gone irrevocably bleak and holocaust-like. The last few surviving X-Men we know come up with a desperate final play, knowing that the events of the present hinged on one particular act in the past, they send someone back with a mission to prevent that act. And luckily for us, there's only one mutant who can survive such a journey, and therefore become the central character of the story -- Wolverine, of course.
 |
| He's the best. Even without his shiny metal claws. |
And with Hugh Jackman at the center of your movie, especially as this classic character, you cannot go wrong. Never mind that un-killable thing, he's the only character sturdy enough to stay steady and unwavering as the complex plot shifts story lines around in a tangling mess hoping to emerge in the end with something pliable.
The focus is mainly centered on the young Professor X, going through a seriously uncharacteristically dark and difficult time as James McAvoy, and Magneto, Michael Fassbender, regular, normal, not-exactly-evil-but-definitely-misguided-and-rather-obtuse extremely complex and annoyingly likable Magneto. Also Mystique and Beast, characters who only became worthy of main-character attention once Jennifer Lawrence and Nicholas Hoult were cast as them. In fact, if I were to order these characters by importance and screen-time, Lawrence would be second only to Jackman. And with her skill, that's how it should be. Peter Dinklage also gets a turn as a typical, but memorable villain.
 |
| And they all turn in fantastic performances as we've come to expect of them. |
The rest are more of side characters, even the greats Ian McKellen and Patrick Stewart, and while their storyline in the future does feel disjointed as you might expect, the characters and their powers are used creatively, make up good scenes and add to the suspense. That one mutant who knew how to think with portals made those scenes worth it singlehandedly.
The plot moved along at a quick and steady pace, and was involving and concise, if, at times a little too weighty and dramatic. It never went too far down that path to cause damage, but I certainly preferred the more fun, upbeat scenes. Like, for an example, every scene featuring Quicksilver. (Evan Peters) His character was brilliantly done, and played for comedy, and now I'm wondering how Age of Ultron could possibly top this with their version of the character. (I'm sure they'll surprise me too.) Anyway, the best of Quicksilver was unarguably the hilarious slow-motion bit where he casually saves the day in a fraction of a second. Unfortunately, he was too super-powered, and had to leave after that so there could be an actual plot for the rest of the film.
 |
| Four cool dudes. |
And from there the rest of the film not being as balanced with comic relief veered over into seriousness, but didn't have sufficient content to ground it. It was still action-packed, sharp, clean, sensible, and filled with fine performances, but it seemed to all add up to nothing we haven't seen four or five times already, just with seriously cooler special effects -- and awesomer actors -- and those really wide 70's collars. Which, I suppose, makes it all worth seeing again doesn't it?
There was only one thing that really bothered me; lack of momentum in the characters. The character arcs were all more like circles because everyone got their due development, and it was all great, but at the end none show any actual progress. With the exception of Charles, who did have a marked change in character from beginning to end -- but not from end of First Class to the end here, which is the same difference.
 |
| "A person's a person, no matter how mutated, and we should all live in harmony." Yes -- we know. Are there no other themes worth exploring? |
All these things make me believe that this film sole purpose was to be a connecting piece to combine the old and the new of the franchise into one, so they can continue from there on a new path. And that it does fantastically well, but the side effect is that it doesn't stand alone very well. As a piece of the franchise it's arguably the best yet, crafted well and with few flaws, and certainly succeeds in pulling the franchise out of a very deep hole. I honestly think it could have been more ambitious though, to band together and move forward into the future it creates simultaneously. It doesn't reach so high, but everything it does endeavor to do it succeeds in doing convincingly, and is well past a worthy installment for both sides of the franchise; as it sets the stage for a brand new future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)