July was downright boring. I saw Spider-Man: Far From Home. And that's it. And it was fine. And that's it. (Read my review here.) And I got really bored and frustrated of this year's movie selection and am on the verge of going to see Once Upon a Time in Hollywood even though I don't care for Tarantino movies typically.
But August. August looks good. August looks like it might begin turning 2019 around. It's going to need more than one solid hit with me in order to do that in the span of 31 days, and that it just... might... have. (Or maybe it's just wishful thinking and some super solid trailers.) Now let's see if I'll even go see more than one in the span of 31 days!
What looks good to you this month? Did I leave anything out?
Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw
In theaters August 2nd; PG-13
Is that really its title? Why can't it just be Hobbs & Shaw?? Someday I'll be in the mood for dumb, ridiculous, over-the-top buddy-cop action. And when that day comes I'm sure this will be just the ticket. But I've never been much for the F&F franchise and even within that neither Hobbs nor Shaw ever had much impact as characters. When I do see this, I will be most excited to see Vanessa Kirby. Then Idris Elba. And THEN The Rock and Jason Statham.
Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark
In theaters August 9th; PG-13
Goosebumps for kids grown up? It is based on a series of books after all, which inspires confidence that it could be more than a throwaway creepy summer flick, but it is also compiling all the stories into one film it seems? Which could cheapen it. This is one I probably won't be watching unless it gets great reviews.
The Peanut Butter Falcon
Limited release on August 9th; PG-13
Shia LaBeouf goes on a road-trip to help a runaway with Downs become a wrestler. With Dakota Johnson. Yep. This could easily turn into one of my favorite movies of the year if it plays its cards right -- like it seems to be. The feeling I get watching that trailer is the same the trailer for The Way Way Back gave me, and that's one of my all-time favorite films. It looks so pure and sweet and full of adventure and to be about uplifting things like love and friendship -- how could it not be appealing?
Blinded by the Light
In theaters August 14th; PG-13
Continuing the trend of apparently pure films with uplifting messages comes this movies about a Pakistani-British teen who falls in love with the music of Bruce Springsteen in 1987. I LOVE this trailer, and what the movies seems to be saying about the universality of music (and within that, art in general and the way it can connect beyond culture lines) -- especially great American rock from the 80s, haha! I hope it's sappy and wears its heart on its sleeve. The sappier the better.
Where'd You Go, Bernadette
In theaters August 16th; PG-13
Richard Linklater's latest is based on a novel, and stars Cate Blanchett. It has all the earmarks of something that should be good, but I'm stuck. I can't get over the hurdle of "Cate Blanchett Plays a Normal Person." Don't get me wrong she's one of my favorite actresses. It's just hard for me to buy her as an every-woman, even done up with plain clothes and hair -- she's still exceptional. It's weird. I'll still keep an eye on this for later.
Ready or Not
Limited release August 21st; R
A stylish-looking horror comedy in which Margot Robbie's doppelganger (Samara Weaving) is the new bride of a member of a uber-rich family who have a tradition in which they kill all new brides as some kind of bizarre ritual sacrifice. A killer game of hide and seek in a wedding dress! With in-laws from hell! Also with Adam Brody who is great. I get a feeling I'm going to like this one.
(This is a red-band trailer that contains violence and language.)
Brittany Runs a Marathon
Limited release August 23rd; R
This looks like a cute comedy/rom-com. It's nice to see a movie where the character's physical improvement isn't all about just being more attractive. Here it's about being healthy, and valuing yourself and you life. I'm not sure it can be a great film on that great idea alone, (it should still be funny and honest and put together in a quality, entertaining way) but it is off to a good start.
Showing posts with label Idris Elba. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Idris Elba. Show all posts
Thursday, August 1, 2019
Tuesday, December 11, 2018
The Jungle Book (2016) & Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle
Spoilers.
Or: The Jungle Book v Mowgli: Which is Worse?
They were announced at around the same time, and trying to one-up each other with their casting at the same time, but Jon Favreau's The Jungle Book beat Andy Serkis' Mowgli to release by two years. Still, I've always thought of them as competing movies, and never saw The Jungle Book, so once Mowgli released, I figured it was time to give them both a shot and see which is the winner.
They're both losers. Thanks for reading.
Nah -- I sat through both of them, so I'm gonna review and compare them, and I have a few things to get off my chest so hang tight.
The Jungle Book = the Disney live action remake. Mowgli = Warner Bros. sold to Netflix.
Or: The Jungle Book v Mowgli: Which is Worse?
They were announced at around the same time, and trying to one-up each other with their casting at the same time, but Jon Favreau's The Jungle Book beat Andy Serkis' Mowgli to release by two years. Still, I've always thought of them as competing movies, and never saw The Jungle Book, so once Mowgli released, I figured it was time to give them both a shot and see which is the winner.
They're both losers. Thanks for reading.
Nah -- I sat through both of them, so I'm gonna review and compare them, and I have a few things to get off my chest so hang tight.
 |
| Like questions. For example: Why does this elephant have moss growing on it??? (From Mowgli.) |
The Jungle Book = the Disney live action remake. Mowgli = Warner Bros. sold to Netflix.
Cast:
Mowgli: Neel Sethi -- Rohan Chand
Bagheera: Ben Kingsley -- Christian Bale
Baloo: Bill Murray -- Andy Serkis
Shere Khan: Idris Elba -- Benedict Cumberbatch
Kaa: Scarlett Johansson -- Cate Blanchett
King Louie: Christopher Walken -- N/A
Wolf Mother: Lupita Nyong'o -- Naomie Harris
Also in The Jungle Book: Giancarlo Esposito.
Also in Mowgli: Peter Mullan, Tom Hollander, Eddie Marsan, Jack Reynor, Matthew Rhys.
Some casts, am I right? It's an impressive list of names, and beside the two kids, there's not a one I'd hesitate to say is talented. They're all terrible. No okay, fine: the actors in themselves do as well as they could be expected to do. Some, like Murray, Serkis and Walken are woefully miscast, and others just do what they do. The real problem here is that the characters are bad because they have confused characters. And the characters are confused because the writing is confused, BUT -- award one point to Mowgli, because the writing there is much cleaner and more straightforward.
 |
| Even though we were already familiar with this one's plot. Sorta. (From The Jungle Book.) |
The Jungle Book had the disadvantage of being a remake, saddled with a nostalgia checklist and new things to bring to the table. As a result, things like this happen: King Louie, a character invented by Disney for the animation, who was named after "The King of Swing" Louis Prima, now doesn't sing a jazzy song or dance, but is monstrous and meant to be scary -- but is counterintuitively played by Christopher Walken. Or, they needed Mowgli and Bagheera to be separated so Mowgli can meet Baloo, but it doesn't make sense that Bagheera would leave, so he gets knocked out in a fight with Shere Khan. Or, since Shere Khan's the bad guy he needs to be present from the beginning, so flesh out his threat to kill Mowgli. And he needs a backstory reason to kill Mowgli. And the wolves shouldn't give up Mowgli so easily. And there has to be mini adventures to pad the run time since there's no musical numbers, but no horsing around with military elephants. Elephants have to be taken seriously. Also, forget Mowgli going to the man village in the end. Who'd want that anyway?
 |
| (From The Jungle Book.) I mean... WHYY?? |
Mowgli, without the Disney template, does what it wants so the plot is just about Mowgli trying to be a wolf, but then having to leave because of Shere Khan's threat, living in the man village, and then saving the day from both Shere Khan, and the evil white hunter who's visiting the village to pretend to be nice while he breaks off elephant's tusks, and beheads wolf puppies. Wow, that degraded a little. But overall, it's considerably more streamlined and has a mildly clearer message, I guess. Neither hit the neat and simple plot and arc of the 67' animation though, of Mowgli searching for a home, wanting it to be the jungle, and finding out it's the village after all. Of course not.
 |
| (From Mowgli.) He has to complete a race to be an official member of the pack. |
Let's talk about Baloo. Easily the best thing about the animation film, and no one really knows what to do with him now. The Jungle Book makes him a lazy bum who has to learn to care for Mowgli and at first only uses him to get honey for him. Most of the film he's careless and dismissive. And I've never seen Bill Murray be so droll and unfunny. I doubt it's his fault, but it was depressing to see. Serkis' version has Baloo work as a trainer for the wolves, so he's around for longer, but even more useless, and UGLY. Why they thought making Baloo ugly was a good idea I will never fathom. But Serkis does at least makes him expressive. I wonder if they used any motion capture for it. (Yes, I've discovered they did.)
 |
| (From Mowgli.) Just look at how weirdly ugly he is. This movie gave all its animals humanoid eyes, too. |
The animation is an interesting subject, actually. The Jungle Book is two years old and the animation has already dated a bit, but it's still objectively better than Mowgli, I'd say. But what Mowgli lacks in budget and quality it makes up for in style. The creature characters have an extra kick of personality, like an amalgamation of caricatured cartoon and photo-realism. So animals are naturally more expressive, readable and recognizable, BUT, at the cost of them seeming out-of-place whenever humans other than Mowgli are in the same scenes. Mowgli spends a chunk of time alone in the man village, and it's like a completely separate movie -- and jarring when animals show up again. Still I prefer that to the characterless designs that happened in The Jungle Book.
 |
| They totally failed Baloo by making him walk on all fours. (From The Jungle Book.) |
What else? Well, all my favorite things about the old animation were missing from the live action. Too silly for them probably, but that little movie lived of its snappy jazz tunes and 60's pop culture. I figured if they were gonna remake it they'd have some particular reason, but it really was just the original -- stripped of everything that made it original, fun, and meaningful. Bagheera was always my favorite and I missed him being that lovable grump. Neither film commits anything atrocious against him though, so that's good, I guess. In the remake I liked how Mowgli would drone on and on about nothing like kids do, and the final action sequence was a creative change. And I liked in Serkis' version how he put a little bit of unique style in there. Favreau's capable of style, but I doubt he was allowed.
If the original 67' animation wasn't a factor, the choice of which is better would be much harder -- but it is, and I can't not consider it. I watched it again after these two to cleanse my palate, and was instantly swept up in its nostalgia, enjoying its quirks, and noticing a few new things that went over my head last time (it's been a while). So I wonder, why do a remake at all? The nostalgia was much stronger rewatching the original, the hand-drawn cartoons will hold up much longer than computer animation, which becomes obsolete as improvements in the art are made, and all the memorable details are in the original, because the remake is afraid to push any boundary, yet is required to adhere to a more serious and realistic tone.
 |
| (From The Jungle Book.) "Keep two of the songs, but... sing them badly? I guess??" "Okay sure." -- Pitch meeting. |
Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle wins automatically from that perspective. Quality-wise it's an arguable fight, but Mowgli has a different plot and new characters; and the familiar characters are utilized differently. It may not be good, but it earns its existence by being something unique. The Jungle Book (2016) is neither unique nor the best version of its story. It definitely had a bigger budget to work with, but for me, that's worthless without a soul, and that it lost along the way. Mowgli bored me after a while, but did seem to possess a soul, however weak a one.
So, The Jungle Book is worse. But the best isn't Mowgli -- the original, 1967 The Jungle Book is the best. I don't care that it wasn't supposed to be in the competition. As the only version of this story I've seen that I'd even consider recommending, it's the clear winner. And though I struggled to get through these two other films, I'm glad I did, since it inspired me to revisit this charming little classic that can still hold its own.
 |
| This is where it's at. |
The Jungle Book (2016) -- 2 stars.
Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle -- 2 stars.
The Jungle Book (1967) -- 4 stars.
Sunday, October 1, 2017
Upcoming Movie Roundup - October
In September I wound up going to see only one movie, and I was surprised that I did, and even more surprised at how much I loved it -- IT. My brother who loves horror movies and my friend who I obsess over Stranger Things with (ST and IT have similar feels, parallel plot elements, and share an actor) helped me overcome my fear and dive into this quite disturbing, but ultimately incredibly rewarding film. It is very similar to Stranger Things as I mentioned, seemingly taking inspiration from the TV show just as the TV took inspiration from it. Read my review of IT here.
This month, there's a few things to keep an eye on, but the only current must-watches for me are down at the bottom -- TV shows! Stranger Things makes it's long-awaited return this month, and also another scifi show of a very different kind: Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency (review), which was the only other thing I managed to review this past month.
What are you looking forward to seeing this October? Let me know in the comments!
Blade Runner 2049
Oct 6th; R
It's got a visually magnificent trailer and early reviews are leaning almost completely positive, but due to the hardness of the R-rating I probably won't see this one until it releases on DVD. I love the scifi/noir genre more than anything, and that was my favorite thing about the original Blade Runner, so the style appeals to me a lot, but I'm not big on it continuing the story of Deckard. Maybe it turns out fine and I have no problem with it, maybe not. I would be completely on board if it were set in the same universe without referring to old characters, but if the risk of including them pays off, it might turn out better than it could have otherwise. At this point the only question is how good it'll be!
The Mountain Between Us
Oct 6th; PG-13
I'm sure that the talents of Idris Elba and Kate Winslet lend this movie a set amount of entertainment and quality that can't be undone, but otherwise this is the kind of plot that stresses me out more than it entertains me. It's the sort of movie I wouldn't even consider seeing in theaters, but would happily watch at home on a lazy afternoon. I just hope the dog gets a good death scene...
(BTW, if the potentially romantic strangers team up isn't appealing to you but the "survival on a snowy mountain" plot is, you could always see Walking Out which features a father and son in a similar situation, or 6 Below: Miracle on the Mountain, with a lone snowboarder. Yep, there's three of these movies this month!)
The Osiris Child
Oct 6th(limited); NR
This month on neat-looking small-time sci-fi! This one was made in Australia, and has a western feel on the side as a result. The effects look great and the world looks real and gritty. Who knows how the plot will turn out as it's pretty typical on the surface. It could succumb to the typicalness or it could manage to be more on the classic, never-gets-old side. I'd definitely like to find out, but who knows when that will happen.
Happy Death Day
Oct 13th; PG-13
Not exactly my cup of tea -- this is a prime example of the type of horror movie that I don't care for. This one has one gimmick to make it more interesting though: the Groundhog Day effect! To my knowledge it's never been used for a horror movie before, (Supernatural did it, but that's a TV show) so that's pretty original. Otherwise the movie looks maybe even worse than similar movies of the genre. I am a bit curious though, because I have a guess as to who the killer is already. If I'm right it'll be a terrible movie, but worth seeing anyway for the satisfaction. And if I'm wrong, then maybe it would be decent. Maybe.
Goodbye Christopher Robin
Oct 13th; PG
But but but, why Goodbye Christopher Robin? Make me think the little kid is going to die or something. This movie looks super sweet and I don't want that to happen. Domhnall Gleeson and sweet dramas are a perfect combination; I'd probably want to watch this even if it didn't also throwback to my childhood with Winnie the Pooh. Margot Robbie is the wife which is neat because she was the girl who turned him down in About Time. And Kelly Macdonald who's great at everything she does.
Geostorm
Oct 20th; PG-13
Geostorm! Yay! I'm so excited for this movie! BECAUSE THEN I WON'T HAVE TO WATCH THAT INCREDIBLY IRRITATING TRAILER ANYMORE. I'm probably going to end up watching it when it come to DVD, because my brother is obsessed with terrible disaster films, and this one is the most disaster-y of them all. I'm sure it was be both awful and a very enjoyable watch. It's got a classic top-tier doomed movie cast: Gerard Butler, Jim Sturgess, Abbie Cornish, Andy Garcia, and Ed Harris (impressively). Also Jeremy Ray Taylor, who was Ben in IT last month, but it looks like a small part so hopefully he'll be able to get past it.
The Snowman
Oct 20th; R
HAHAHAHAHAhaha. Haha. Ha. Michael Fassbender, Rebecca Ferguson, J.K. Simmons. Sounds nice, but then you get this plot. I seriously don't get this. This is dime-a-dozen serial killer story line, except it looks like it's just embracing all the cliches of the genre instead of trying to subvert them with originally. And we're still supposed to take it seriously? Whatever, this isn't the kind of thing I'd be interested in in any form.
The Gifted
Oct 2nd; FOX
I doubt I'll love it as much as I did Legion, but The Gifted looks so much like Legion made for teens that I get the feeling it'll be at least worth watching. Yeah, it's probably going to have lots of teenager-angst drama, but it looks like a decent production, and even in the trailer the characters are set up to be interesting. Also the length of six episodes is promising -- promising that they won't be draining the life out of the story, but giving us a concise story line that hopefully more or less wraps up at the end, whether a second season is done or not. Actually looking to checking this out.
Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Oct 14th; BBC America (season 2)
I just discovered this show, and with perfect timing to be ready for the second season! This show is like what would happen if The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and Doctor Who were merged, but confined to Earth, and features a "detective" who follows fate around to solves cases. Everything's connected, nothing's a coincidence, and it's 50% goofy and hilarious, 25% neatly dramatic, 20% mind-blowing, and 5% awkward. I love it. And I'm excited to see the next wacky adventure!
Stranger Things
Oct 27th; Netflix (season 2)
I haven't watched any trailers for this second season, and I don't think I will. I went into season 1 completely unaware and unprepared, and, I think I'm still reeling from it. Recreating the season 1 experience is probably impossible, but I'm just going for knowing the least amount of spoilers that's reasonably possible. This is hands down my most anticipated entertainment event of the month, and if all goes as planned, it will be launched up the the level of Baby Driver and Dunkirk as the best of the year. I'm terrified that this season won't live up to the first, but only because I love it and am so invested in it's success and the standards are so high -- not because there's any kind of evidence that it won't be absolutely magnificent. I. Can't. Wait!
This month, there's a few things to keep an eye on, but the only current must-watches for me are down at the bottom -- TV shows! Stranger Things makes it's long-awaited return this month, and also another scifi show of a very different kind: Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency (review), which was the only other thing I managed to review this past month.
What are you looking forward to seeing this October? Let me know in the comments!
Blade Runner 2049
Oct 6th; R
It's got a visually magnificent trailer and early reviews are leaning almost completely positive, but due to the hardness of the R-rating I probably won't see this one until it releases on DVD. I love the scifi/noir genre more than anything, and that was my favorite thing about the original Blade Runner, so the style appeals to me a lot, but I'm not big on it continuing the story of Deckard. Maybe it turns out fine and I have no problem with it, maybe not. I would be completely on board if it were set in the same universe without referring to old characters, but if the risk of including them pays off, it might turn out better than it could have otherwise. At this point the only question is how good it'll be!
The Mountain Between Us
Oct 6th; PG-13
I'm sure that the talents of Idris Elba and Kate Winslet lend this movie a set amount of entertainment and quality that can't be undone, but otherwise this is the kind of plot that stresses me out more than it entertains me. It's the sort of movie I wouldn't even consider seeing in theaters, but would happily watch at home on a lazy afternoon. I just hope the dog gets a good death scene...
(BTW, if the potentially romantic strangers team up isn't appealing to you but the "survival on a snowy mountain" plot is, you could always see Walking Out which features a father and son in a similar situation, or 6 Below: Miracle on the Mountain, with a lone snowboarder. Yep, there's three of these movies this month!)
The Osiris Child
Oct 6th(limited); NR
This month on neat-looking small-time sci-fi! This one was made in Australia, and has a western feel on the side as a result. The effects look great and the world looks real and gritty. Who knows how the plot will turn out as it's pretty typical on the surface. It could succumb to the typicalness or it could manage to be more on the classic, never-gets-old side. I'd definitely like to find out, but who knows when that will happen.
Happy Death Day
Oct 13th; PG-13
Not exactly my cup of tea -- this is a prime example of the type of horror movie that I don't care for. This one has one gimmick to make it more interesting though: the Groundhog Day effect! To my knowledge it's never been used for a horror movie before, (Supernatural did it, but that's a TV show) so that's pretty original. Otherwise the movie looks maybe even worse than similar movies of the genre. I am a bit curious though, because I have a guess as to who the killer is already. If I'm right it'll be a terrible movie, but worth seeing anyway for the satisfaction. And if I'm wrong, then maybe it would be decent. Maybe.
Goodbye Christopher Robin
Oct 13th; PG
But but but, why Goodbye Christopher Robin? Make me think the little kid is going to die or something. This movie looks super sweet and I don't want that to happen. Domhnall Gleeson and sweet dramas are a perfect combination; I'd probably want to watch this even if it didn't also throwback to my childhood with Winnie the Pooh. Margot Robbie is the wife which is neat because she was the girl who turned him down in About Time. And Kelly Macdonald who's great at everything she does.
Geostorm
Oct 20th; PG-13
Geostorm! Yay! I'm so excited for this movie! BECAUSE THEN I WON'T HAVE TO WATCH THAT INCREDIBLY IRRITATING TRAILER ANYMORE. I'm probably going to end up watching it when it come to DVD, because my brother is obsessed with terrible disaster films, and this one is the most disaster-y of them all. I'm sure it was be both awful and a very enjoyable watch. It's got a classic top-tier doomed movie cast: Gerard Butler, Jim Sturgess, Abbie Cornish, Andy Garcia, and Ed Harris (impressively). Also Jeremy Ray Taylor, who was Ben in IT last month, but it looks like a small part so hopefully he'll be able to get past it.
The Snowman
Oct 20th; R
HAHAHAHAHAhaha. Haha. Ha. Michael Fassbender, Rebecca Ferguson, J.K. Simmons. Sounds nice, but then you get this plot. I seriously don't get this. This is dime-a-dozen serial killer story line, except it looks like it's just embracing all the cliches of the genre instead of trying to subvert them with originally. And we're still supposed to take it seriously? Whatever, this isn't the kind of thing I'd be interested in in any form.
The Gifted
Oct 2nd; FOX
I doubt I'll love it as much as I did Legion, but The Gifted looks so much like Legion made for teens that I get the feeling it'll be at least worth watching. Yeah, it's probably going to have lots of teenager-angst drama, but it looks like a decent production, and even in the trailer the characters are set up to be interesting. Also the length of six episodes is promising -- promising that they won't be draining the life out of the story, but giving us a concise story line that hopefully more or less wraps up at the end, whether a second season is done or not. Actually looking to checking this out.
Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Oct 14th; BBC America (season 2)
I just discovered this show, and with perfect timing to be ready for the second season! This show is like what would happen if The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and Doctor Who were merged, but confined to Earth, and features a "detective" who follows fate around to solves cases. Everything's connected, nothing's a coincidence, and it's 50% goofy and hilarious, 25% neatly dramatic, 20% mind-blowing, and 5% awkward. I love it. And I'm excited to see the next wacky adventure!
Stranger Things
Oct 27th; Netflix (season 2)
I haven't watched any trailers for this second season, and I don't think I will. I went into season 1 completely unaware and unprepared, and, I think I'm still reeling from it. Recreating the season 1 experience is probably impossible, but I'm just going for knowing the least amount of spoilers that's reasonably possible. This is hands down my most anticipated entertainment event of the month, and if all goes as planned, it will be launched up the the level of Baby Driver and Dunkirk as the best of the year. I'm terrified that this season won't live up to the first, but only because I love it and am so invested in it's success and the standards are so high -- not because there's any kind of evidence that it won't be absolutely magnificent. I. Can't. Wait!
Tuesday, August 1, 2017
Upcoming Movie Roundup - August
Well 2017 is officially a very impressive movie year! Last month I said it would be if anything managed to top the brilliant Baby Driver, and, (while I hesitate to compare them so directly since they're such completely different pieces of filmmaking) I think Dunkirk has done just that. I saw it regular, and then again in 70mm, and since I wrote my review before seeing the 70mm version, I'd like to talk a bit about the 70mm experience. Just skip down if this is completely uninteresting to you:
Firstly, yes, digital 70mm is a thing. Being a novice about being picky about movie screens it confused me for a while that my theater claimed to be showing a movie in film format digitally, but yes, everything looked and sounded as it should. I don't know if this is a super common question to have, but I would have liked a nice straightforward answer like this when I was wondering, so I'm putting it out there.
Next, what to expect with 70mm: If you're a film connoisseur or already know you love Dunkirk I'd absolutely recommend seeing it in 70mm. If you're a casual moviegoer, you might find it odd, because while the 70mm is being presented to us as the movie enhanced, it's enhanced in style rather than in quality. It is sharper, yes, and there more contrast to the picture, but those are minute details, and some of the more major differences in a lot of ways actually detract from the movie's quality. (Such as we've come to think of movie quality of course.) The 70mm's whites are much brighter and appear to vibrate on the screen -- the sort of thing you'd call a flaw if you saw it in a Transformer movie. The blacks are also much darker (at one point in the movie the lights go out, and it's as if the film itself goes out) and colors seemed more true. Some scenes had different tints from others. And you can see tiny imperfections in the film.
The biggest change though, and one I didn't expect, was the sound. There was much more bass overall (so as Spitfires fly overhead in the film, you feel their noise move through you as you would in real life) and the dialogue had some difficult to describe qualities to it -- to me it sounded vaguely like dialogue from on old 30's or 40's movie, which is appropriate, but it had a lowness to it, like higher frequencies in the voices were cut out. It also sounded grainy (if things can sound grainy) and almost muted, yet I found it easier to understand the lines. That seems counter-intuitive, but my dad said the same thing, and he's the one in the family who usually doesn't understand dialogue, so I swear, it's not just me being weird. Honestly the sound was my favorite difference, and absolutely enhanced the movie, which had already blown me away, to an even higher level.
Some of those things could easily be called flaws in a normal movie situation, except, here, that is how Christopher Nolan meant the film to be. What was made obsolete by improving technology has now become an artistic style choice, and Nolan used it to great advantage. Regular movie projection now shows us the film as less than it's meant to be -- and I find that very neat. (Then of course there's IMAX to consider but I won't go there.) It goes along with how the characters were done; Nolan stripped away the common and the unnecessary from the film, making his vision all the more focused. In short, after seeing Dunkirk in 70mm, I feel that my experience experiencing this experience of a film is only now truly complete. And the ticket price was not a cent more expensive!
(Click here to read my review of the film itself!)
I also saw Spider-Man: Homecoming in July, but after Dunkirk, poor Spidey is a bit overshadowed right now! I liked the movie, and loved Tom Holland as the kid hero, and even saw it twice! (Review here!) I still want to see Valerian someday, but probably won't waste ticket money on it, and since War for the Planet of the Apes got such a good response from fans, I'll watch that eventually too; to either solidify my low opinion, or change my mind (unlikely, but possible I suppose.)
August has no must-sees (unless new information develops) but a good spread of pretty interesting movies! A nice number of indies! I like indies. Anyway, on to my list. How was your movie-July? And how is you movie-August shaping up? Let me know in the comments!
The Dark Tower
Aug 4th; PG-13
Based on the novel series by Steven King, and the trailer looks cool, but I don't really have a dog in this race. I never got around to reading the book, though I usually do whenever an interesting movie based on a book is coming up. Maybe I could still squeeze it in, but I'm not sure I want to. I heard rumors that there were changes made, and the book fans aren't terribly happy? Of course based solely on the trailer, it being based on a King story is a definite plus. Idris Elba is always effortlessly cool and hardcore, and Matthew McConaughey playing the baddie is nice for once. I'm not holding out much hope that it'll be much more than a fun mid-summer action flick with some neat sci-fi elements, but if it does that, and does it well, that'll be all it needs to be anyway -- for me that is. For the fans I hope it's a satisfying adaptation. If there are good reviews it's likely that I'll go see this one.
Wind River
Aug 4th; R
I still haven't seen Sicario or Hell or High Water, but every time this Taylor Sheridan writes a movie it looks very interesting. This one is a murder mystery starring Jeremy Renner and Elizabeth Olsen. I've always liked the niche dynamic they have in the Avengers movies, so I'd like to see this one someday on that point alone. I think the trailer gives too much away though, so maybe think twice before watching it.
Some Freaks
Aug 4th(limited); NR
Thomas Mann is great. I'll watch him in any kind of romance/dramedy. He seems to like the quirky ones, and this one's about as quirky as they come! It's an indie so who knows when it'll pop up somewhere, but I'll be on the lookout.
The Only Living Boy in New York
Aug 11th(limited); R
Whether I want to see this depends largely on how it ends, and what the take-away is, but in order to know that, you have to see it. So I'll keep an eye open. It's got a great cast. Listening to Jeff Bridges explain existential things is one of the finer things in life.
Pilgrimage
Aug 11th(limited); NR
Me watching this trailer: "Ooo, Peter Parker and Punisher medieval team up, that's sounds cool." "Woah, it's a quest movie -- very Lord of the Rings." "Oh my gosh, Ritchard Armitage! It is Middle Earth!" And then finally: "Yikes." This actually looks quite a bit more interesting than a mere Spidey/Punisher team-up. Will be on the lookout.
The Hitman's Bodyguard
Aug 18th; R
So, like, the comedy version of Safe House? Sounds neat. Honestly I expected I wouldn't even have to bother with this one since it's so blatantly R-rated, but apparently there will be only language and violence so not as bad as I was expecting. R-rated comedies can work for me, but it has to be genuinely a good movie for me to brave the waters. This is a case of "wait-and-see." The trailer I saw in theaters a while back made it look pretty dumb, but this one has more promise. Samuel L. Jackson is for sure, but Ryan Reynolds is hit or miss. Hopefully it's a hit, but I won't be missing anything if it isn't.
Logan Lucky
Aug 18th; PG-13
Channing Tatum, Adam Driver, Daniel Craig getting as far away from Bond as he possibly can poor guy, Sebastian Stan, Katie Holmes, Katherine Watterson, Hilary Swank -- it's definitely got the cast of a good movie! It's got oddball comedy, a memorable quirky plot, weirdo characters, and a heist. Sounds like a pretty great movie actually. It's also got an early perfect score on RT. It hasn't reached must-see status for me yet, but I will be paying close attention as it comes around the bend.
The Defenders
Aug 18th on Netflix
Daredevil season 1 was fantastic. Season 2 was barely passable only because of Punisher. I never watched Jessica Jones or Luke Cage, and probably never will. And Iron Fist was laughably bad and a sad letdown. Yet, here I am, garnering up excitement for the team-up. My optimistic mind is considering that Iron Fist was only terrible because it was rushed, and since Defenders is Netflix-Marvel's big event effort will be put into it. My rational mind watches this trailer, and sees nothing worth getting hopes up for. I won't be surprised if the 18th rolls around and I find myself sitting down to watch this -- the surprise will come if it's actually as great as it should be.
Firstly, yes, digital 70mm is a thing. Being a novice about being picky about movie screens it confused me for a while that my theater claimed to be showing a movie in film format digitally, but yes, everything looked and sounded as it should. I don't know if this is a super common question to have, but I would have liked a nice straightforward answer like this when I was wondering, so I'm putting it out there.
Next, what to expect with 70mm: If you're a film connoisseur or already know you love Dunkirk I'd absolutely recommend seeing it in 70mm. If you're a casual moviegoer, you might find it odd, because while the 70mm is being presented to us as the movie enhanced, it's enhanced in style rather than in quality. It is sharper, yes, and there more contrast to the picture, but those are minute details, and some of the more major differences in a lot of ways actually detract from the movie's quality. (Such as we've come to think of movie quality of course.) The 70mm's whites are much brighter and appear to vibrate on the screen -- the sort of thing you'd call a flaw if you saw it in a Transformer movie. The blacks are also much darker (at one point in the movie the lights go out, and it's as if the film itself goes out) and colors seemed more true. Some scenes had different tints from others. And you can see tiny imperfections in the film.
The biggest change though, and one I didn't expect, was the sound. There was much more bass overall (so as Spitfires fly overhead in the film, you feel their noise move through you as you would in real life) and the dialogue had some difficult to describe qualities to it -- to me it sounded vaguely like dialogue from on old 30's or 40's movie, which is appropriate, but it had a lowness to it, like higher frequencies in the voices were cut out. It also sounded grainy (if things can sound grainy) and almost muted, yet I found it easier to understand the lines. That seems counter-intuitive, but my dad said the same thing, and he's the one in the family who usually doesn't understand dialogue, so I swear, it's not just me being weird. Honestly the sound was my favorite difference, and absolutely enhanced the movie, which had already blown me away, to an even higher level.
Some of those things could easily be called flaws in a normal movie situation, except, here, that is how Christopher Nolan meant the film to be. What was made obsolete by improving technology has now become an artistic style choice, and Nolan used it to great advantage. Regular movie projection now shows us the film as less than it's meant to be -- and I find that very neat. (Then of course there's IMAX to consider but I won't go there.) It goes along with how the characters were done; Nolan stripped away the common and the unnecessary from the film, making his vision all the more focused. In short, after seeing Dunkirk in 70mm, I feel that my experience experiencing this experience of a film is only now truly complete. And the ticket price was not a cent more expensive!
(Click here to read my review of the film itself!)
I also saw Spider-Man: Homecoming in July, but after Dunkirk, poor Spidey is a bit overshadowed right now! I liked the movie, and loved Tom Holland as the kid hero, and even saw it twice! (Review here!) I still want to see Valerian someday, but probably won't waste ticket money on it, and since War for the Planet of the Apes got such a good response from fans, I'll watch that eventually too; to either solidify my low opinion, or change my mind (unlikely, but possible I suppose.)
August has no must-sees (unless new information develops) but a good spread of pretty interesting movies! A nice number of indies! I like indies. Anyway, on to my list. How was your movie-July? And how is you movie-August shaping up? Let me know in the comments!
The Dark Tower
Aug 4th; PG-13
Based on the novel series by Steven King, and the trailer looks cool, but I don't really have a dog in this race. I never got around to reading the book, though I usually do whenever an interesting movie based on a book is coming up. Maybe I could still squeeze it in, but I'm not sure I want to. I heard rumors that there were changes made, and the book fans aren't terribly happy? Of course based solely on the trailer, it being based on a King story is a definite plus. Idris Elba is always effortlessly cool and hardcore, and Matthew McConaughey playing the baddie is nice for once. I'm not holding out much hope that it'll be much more than a fun mid-summer action flick with some neat sci-fi elements, but if it does that, and does it well, that'll be all it needs to be anyway -- for me that is. For the fans I hope it's a satisfying adaptation. If there are good reviews it's likely that I'll go see this one.
Wind River
Aug 4th; R
I still haven't seen Sicario or Hell or High Water, but every time this Taylor Sheridan writes a movie it looks very interesting. This one is a murder mystery starring Jeremy Renner and Elizabeth Olsen. I've always liked the niche dynamic they have in the Avengers movies, so I'd like to see this one someday on that point alone. I think the trailer gives too much away though, so maybe think twice before watching it.
Some Freaks
Aug 4th(limited); NR
Thomas Mann is great. I'll watch him in any kind of romance/dramedy. He seems to like the quirky ones, and this one's about as quirky as they come! It's an indie so who knows when it'll pop up somewhere, but I'll be on the lookout.
The Only Living Boy in New York
Aug 11th(limited); R
Whether I want to see this depends largely on how it ends, and what the take-away is, but in order to know that, you have to see it. So I'll keep an eye open. It's got a great cast. Listening to Jeff Bridges explain existential things is one of the finer things in life.
Pilgrimage
Aug 11th(limited); NR
Me watching this trailer: "Ooo, Peter Parker and Punisher medieval team up, that's sounds cool." "Woah, it's a quest movie -- very Lord of the Rings." "Oh my gosh, Ritchard Armitage! It is Middle Earth!" And then finally: "Yikes." This actually looks quite a bit more interesting than a mere Spidey/Punisher team-up. Will be on the lookout.
The Hitman's Bodyguard
Aug 18th; R
So, like, the comedy version of Safe House? Sounds neat. Honestly I expected I wouldn't even have to bother with this one since it's so blatantly R-rated, but apparently there will be only language and violence so not as bad as I was expecting. R-rated comedies can work for me, but it has to be genuinely a good movie for me to brave the waters. This is a case of "wait-and-see." The trailer I saw in theaters a while back made it look pretty dumb, but this one has more promise. Samuel L. Jackson is for sure, but Ryan Reynolds is hit or miss. Hopefully it's a hit, but I won't be missing anything if it isn't.
Logan Lucky
Aug 18th; PG-13
Channing Tatum, Adam Driver, Daniel Craig getting as far away from Bond as he possibly can poor guy, Sebastian Stan, Katie Holmes, Katherine Watterson, Hilary Swank -- it's definitely got the cast of a good movie! It's got oddball comedy, a memorable quirky plot, weirdo characters, and a heist. Sounds like a pretty great movie actually. It's also got an early perfect score on RT. It hasn't reached must-see status for me yet, but I will be paying close attention as it comes around the bend.
The Defenders
Aug 18th on Netflix
Daredevil season 1 was fantastic. Season 2 was barely passable only because of Punisher. I never watched Jessica Jones or Luke Cage, and probably never will. And Iron Fist was laughably bad and a sad letdown. Yet, here I am, garnering up excitement for the team-up. My optimistic mind is considering that Iron Fist was only terrible because it was rushed, and since Defenders is Netflix-Marvel's big event effort will be put into it. My rational mind watches this trailer, and sees nothing worth getting hopes up for. I won't be surprised if the 18th rolls around and I find myself sitting down to watch this -- the surprise will come if it's actually as great as it should be.
Tuesday, November 1, 2016
Upcoming Movie Roundup - November
In October I went to the movies! I saw The Magnificent Seven, which was a nice wrap-up for the summer, and now it's November already and the season of Oscar hopefuls is starting! Lots of movies this month, and lots that look really good! Which ones have your attention?
Doctor Strange
Nov 3rd; PG-13
Benedict Cumberbatch takes his turn as Marvel hero as the Marvel universe officially expands into the realm of magic. I'm expecting good things. This movie doesn't have the kind of hype that surrounds some Marvel films like sequels and team-ups, but I always look forward to the introduction films and what they'll bring to the table that's new. And Doctor Strange more than most seems to be coming from its own place and is (as of yet) unconnected with the rest of Marvel. The trailers look good and promise plenty of weirdness, and Cumberbatch appears to be in fine form as the new hero. He's joined by Tilda Swinton, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Mads Mikkelsen and Rachel McAdams, and positive reviews are already flooding in. I have no doubt this movie will be good; it's just a matter of how good at this point. I hope it'll be spectacular, but even if it isn't, it should certainly be a worthy addition all the same -- and a definite must-see!
Loving
Nov 3rd; PG-13
My favorite director returns again with a second film for 2016! Well, I just said it, so it must be true; Jeff Nichols is my favorite director. So far he's been batting a thousand, with four beautifully brilliant and strikingly different films under his belt, and everything seems to indicate that Loving will be right at home along with them. It stars Joel Edgerton and Ruth Negga as the historic interracial couple Richard and Mildred Loving who fought the system over their marriage in the 60's. Nichols' staple, Michael Shannon is there also, and Nick Kroll and Marton Csokas. Normally, I have diminished interest in based-on-true-story films, especially if they're straight dramas, so I can see this being my least favorite from Nichols, but even if that's the case, it's still just as likely to be as beautifully and excellently made.
Arrival
Nov 10th; PG-13
Did I just watch a trailer for a political alien movie? At the very least Arrival seems to be exploring the realistic technical aspects of a hypothetical alien contact. Maybe like in the way The Martian did for surviving on a different planet. How would the government react? Who would be brought in to handle things? What kind of obstacles would need to be overcome and how would it be done? And then of course you throw in the question of whether the alien's intentions are good or bad, and you have a pretty neat idea for a movie! And based on the early reviews, they've pulled it off. Amy Adams stars -- who I'm currently feeling "meh" towards, but I know she capable of good things -- along with Jeremy Renner (always a plus) and Forest Whitaker. I'm always down for sci-fi, but I really want this one to be as great as it wants and appears to be.
Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them
Nov 17th; PG-13
Okay, I'm not much of a Harry Potter fan. Never read them; watched the films through and enjoyed them. Just so you know where I'm coming from here. This new spin-off does look like fun; set in the same universe, but apparently very separate from Harry's adventures. Eddie Redmayne is being all quirky and odd and is using magic a lot in the trailer which is great, and I like the tone of the trailer too. Mature, like the later Potter films, but also very focused on being fun. I heard it's the beginning of a new Potter-World series, and I just hope it doesn't turn into eight more movies. The idea of investing in a whole new string of films isn't appealing to me at my level of interest, but if this movie delivers and can stand on it's own, I'd be happy to watch it!
Manchester by the Sea
Nov 17th (limited); R
I don't have much to say about this one. It's rating will keep me out of the theaters for it even if I were that interested anyway. But I just really love all that all the critically acclaimed film are coming out now, and the critics are gushing over this one. So I thought the trailer was worth sharing.
Nocturnal Animals
Nov 17th (limited); R
Now this is the kind of character I'd really love to see Amy Adams play. Dark, and possibly sinister. And man, this film has a cast! There's also Jake Gyllenhaal, Michael Shannon, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Isla Fisher (Amy's look-alike!), Armie Hammer, and Laura Linney! The movie will probably have to be cut before I'll watch it, but it looks like my kind of film. Moody, mysterious and noir-ish. It's based on a book, so I'll have to look into that too.
Bleed For This
Nov 17th; R
Miles Teller bulks up to star in this based-on-a-true-story sports drama as a boxer who works through a devastating injury from a car crash to be able to fight again. Aaron Eckhart costars as his trainer. Sports movies aren't typically my things, but fighting sports do have an edge over other kinds. I would probably be very interested in this if it weren't for the rating, and how it comes through in the trailer -- that is, unnecessarily. These are the earmarks of a movie that is only decent, because not enough effort and devotion was put into making it great.
The Take (Bastille Day)
Nov 17th (limited); R
Idris Elba. Richard Madden. British action movie. Enough said, I think! This doesn't look like a huge caliber action film or anything, but it's the sort of movie that I'd want to watch no matter how bad it is and then live with the regret if I must. Another iffy rating, but I'll be keeping an eye out.
Rules Don't Apply
Nov 22nd; PG-13
I liked Alden Ehrenreich in Hail, Caesar! so much that I might be interested in this movie even if he wasn't the new Han Solo, but honestly this movie's plot looks like garbage. As another pilot of the Millennium Falcon would say. Here he co-stars with Lily Collins while she plays a aspiring actress in 1950's Hollywood. Romance and drama ensues.
Lion
Nov 24th (limited); NR
Probably won't be able to make it to the level of Slumdog Millionaire, which it will probably be compared to considering the drama and Dev Patel in the lead, but it sure is an interesting original idea for a story! An Indian boy lost as a kid is adopted by an Australian couple, and 25 years later, he sets out on the nearly impossible task of finding his home and family again.
Doctor Strange
Nov 3rd; PG-13
Benedict Cumberbatch takes his turn as Marvel hero as the Marvel universe officially expands into the realm of magic. I'm expecting good things. This movie doesn't have the kind of hype that surrounds some Marvel films like sequels and team-ups, but I always look forward to the introduction films and what they'll bring to the table that's new. And Doctor Strange more than most seems to be coming from its own place and is (as of yet) unconnected with the rest of Marvel. The trailers look good and promise plenty of weirdness, and Cumberbatch appears to be in fine form as the new hero. He's joined by Tilda Swinton, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Mads Mikkelsen and Rachel McAdams, and positive reviews are already flooding in. I have no doubt this movie will be good; it's just a matter of how good at this point. I hope it'll be spectacular, but even if it isn't, it should certainly be a worthy addition all the same -- and a definite must-see!
Loving
Nov 3rd; PG-13
My favorite director returns again with a second film for 2016! Well, I just said it, so it must be true; Jeff Nichols is my favorite director. So far he's been batting a thousand, with four beautifully brilliant and strikingly different films under his belt, and everything seems to indicate that Loving will be right at home along with them. It stars Joel Edgerton and Ruth Negga as the historic interracial couple Richard and Mildred Loving who fought the system over their marriage in the 60's. Nichols' staple, Michael Shannon is there also, and Nick Kroll and Marton Csokas. Normally, I have diminished interest in based-on-true-story films, especially if they're straight dramas, so I can see this being my least favorite from Nichols, but even if that's the case, it's still just as likely to be as beautifully and excellently made.
Arrival
Nov 10th; PG-13
Did I just watch a trailer for a political alien movie? At the very least Arrival seems to be exploring the realistic technical aspects of a hypothetical alien contact. Maybe like in the way The Martian did for surviving on a different planet. How would the government react? Who would be brought in to handle things? What kind of obstacles would need to be overcome and how would it be done? And then of course you throw in the question of whether the alien's intentions are good or bad, and you have a pretty neat idea for a movie! And based on the early reviews, they've pulled it off. Amy Adams stars -- who I'm currently feeling "meh" towards, but I know she capable of good things -- along with Jeremy Renner (always a plus) and Forest Whitaker. I'm always down for sci-fi, but I really want this one to be as great as it wants and appears to be.
Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them
Nov 17th; PG-13
Okay, I'm not much of a Harry Potter fan. Never read them; watched the films through and enjoyed them. Just so you know where I'm coming from here. This new spin-off does look like fun; set in the same universe, but apparently very separate from Harry's adventures. Eddie Redmayne is being all quirky and odd and is using magic a lot in the trailer which is great, and I like the tone of the trailer too. Mature, like the later Potter films, but also very focused on being fun. I heard it's the beginning of a new Potter-World series, and I just hope it doesn't turn into eight more movies. The idea of investing in a whole new string of films isn't appealing to me at my level of interest, but if this movie delivers and can stand on it's own, I'd be happy to watch it!
Manchester by the Sea
Nov 17th (limited); R
I don't have much to say about this one. It's rating will keep me out of the theaters for it even if I were that interested anyway. But I just really love all that all the critically acclaimed film are coming out now, and the critics are gushing over this one. So I thought the trailer was worth sharing.
Nocturnal Animals
Nov 17th (limited); R
Now this is the kind of character I'd really love to see Amy Adams play. Dark, and possibly sinister. And man, this film has a cast! There's also Jake Gyllenhaal, Michael Shannon, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Isla Fisher (Amy's look-alike!), Armie Hammer, and Laura Linney! The movie will probably have to be cut before I'll watch it, but it looks like my kind of film. Moody, mysterious and noir-ish. It's based on a book, so I'll have to look into that too.
Bleed For This
Nov 17th; R
Miles Teller bulks up to star in this based-on-a-true-story sports drama as a boxer who works through a devastating injury from a car crash to be able to fight again. Aaron Eckhart costars as his trainer. Sports movies aren't typically my things, but fighting sports do have an edge over other kinds. I would probably be very interested in this if it weren't for the rating, and how it comes through in the trailer -- that is, unnecessarily. These are the earmarks of a movie that is only decent, because not enough effort and devotion was put into making it great.
The Take (Bastille Day)
Nov 17th (limited); R
Idris Elba. Richard Madden. British action movie. Enough said, I think! This doesn't look like a huge caliber action film or anything, but it's the sort of movie that I'd want to watch no matter how bad it is and then live with the regret if I must. Another iffy rating, but I'll be keeping an eye out.
Rules Don't Apply
Nov 22nd; PG-13
I liked Alden Ehrenreich in Hail, Caesar! so much that I might be interested in this movie even if he wasn't the new Han Solo, but honestly this movie's plot looks like garbage. As another pilot of the Millennium Falcon would say. Here he co-stars with Lily Collins while she plays a aspiring actress in 1950's Hollywood. Romance and drama ensues.
Lion
Nov 24th (limited); NR
Probably won't be able to make it to the level of Slumdog Millionaire, which it will probably be compared to considering the drama and Dev Patel in the lead, but it sure is an interesting original idea for a story! An Indian boy lost as a kid is adopted by an Australian couple, and 25 years later, he sets out on the nearly impossible task of finding his home and family again.
Saturday, July 23, 2016
Star Trek Beyond
Spoiler-free.
When the trailer released, I was one of few people who thought it promised good -- a promise that needed to be made for the fans nervous about J. J. Abrams handing over directing reins to Justin Lin. Through that admittedly iffy trailer I saw where I thought this film was headed, and I liked it. Still after a while my excitement took a beating, and I was hesitant to see the film as soon as I did. Not because I thought it wouldn't be good anymore, but because I thought I wouldn't be able to enjoy it as it was meant to be enjoyed. But I was right where it mattered and wrong where it mattered; Beyond does everything that I expected it'd do, and was able to put a smile on my face.
The third installment of the rebooted franchise dials back on the scale, and narrows its focuses to character and action for a pleasant episodic feel. Jim Kirk and his crew are cut off from the federation, stranded on a strange planet in the far reaches of the galaxy, and face a mysterious and intimidating threat which they face with bold determination.
Firstly, more than just the directing reins changed hands. This time round, Simon Pegg and Doug Jung did the writing, rather than J. J.'s regulars. The reason I had so much confidence in this movie from the start was because of Simon Pegg. Certainly less known as a writer, but anyone who knows his writing work knows that it's the type to inspire confidence. And he didn't fall short; to the uninitiated this film is indistinguishable from the last two. There's the same sharp action, the same comic relief that is actually funny and elicits a real laugh, the same serious tone used carefully to add depth and urgency, and those same "Star Trek" moments that cause cheesy grins.
But to those like me who are compelled to look under the surface, there are some differences. And differences I was all for, but these were not purposeful deviations from the formula, but rather elements that were attempts at copying previous successes that just don't land quite as confidently. Paying attention to the plot progression, a more than typical number of plot holes are distinguishable, and too much of the dialogue is used in exposition, trying to explain holes away. And there are a few contrivances that were necessary for the plot to work. There did seem to be a handful of moments of genuine inspiration -- and they were all kinds of fantastic -- but for the most part the plot exists to serve the action.
There was no shortage of memorable action set pieces though they were sometimes worked into the story less than gracefully. There were two shots where the CGI was noticeable and almost humorously bad, otherwise the special effects are fine, though not exactly evoking of awe either. It also loses a sense of sophistication that the previous films had, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. This film has a ragtag aura that is interestingly appealing. The only thing the more blunt action caused that I didn't like was that the fighting and action was filmed too close, and often with too low lighting for us to get the full effect. But not quite too much that you can't tell what's going on. The grandeur and beauty of the setting seems to be only shown off because it's obligatory; it's still got some great artistic imagery, but it doesn't linger like I found myself wishing it would.
The themes are simplistic and not particularly thought-provoking, but there is a charm to experiencing an action flick that doesn't try to shoehorn its themes. There's friendship and camaraderie going on that feels like it wasn't even done on purpose it's so natural. Give Justin Lin a large cast of oddball characters, and he can make them mesh; and these characters take to his treatment like they were made for it. Captain Kirk battling the odds with his two opposite sidekicks is sometimes the only thing we need. And when Bones and Spock have scenes together, which they do often, they lightly bounce their opposing worldviews back and forth with a casual depth that is subtly epic. Their scenes are also the most consistently funny, in a true, organic way.
Zachary Quinto has found that perfect balance of determined logic and suppressed but genuine emotion with his Spock. I doubt he'll ever be my favorite character, but the respect keeps going up. Bones is already one of my favorites though, and won't be losing his place any time soon. Karl Urban always has been, and continues to be a fantastic Bones. The rough, sarcastic edge, the way he embraces his humanity (the good with the bad), and his innate lovable charm is all effortless from Urban. He gets even more to do this time around, and proves he deserves it and more. This time it's Uhura (Zoe Saldana) and Sulu (John Cho) who fall slightly to the wayside -- comparatively. They still have whatever they had from the last movies, but don't really add anything new or fresh.
Ever underused is Chekov. Especially now, considering this is the last film in which the adorably quirky character will make an appearance. He was my favorite ever since he had all that trouble pronouncing his V's in movie one, and the Star Trek franchise won't be half as good in my eyes without him. Here he gets more to do than ever, but still isn't there nearly enough. The way the camera glances past him is maddeningly reminiscent of real life, but Anton Yelchin made the best of the part as he always did, and made the character unforgettable with his cute and awkward mannerisms, accent, and unconcealable charm. It's never pointed out to the audience even slightly, but I don't think I was seeing things when I noticed Chekov crushing on Jaylah, and it nearly broke me with adorableness. Chekov is an irreplaceable character -- there will be a gaping hole in every single installment to come.
Now Jaylah (Sofia Boutella) is the obligatory new allied character, and is the best yet. That chic totally rocked. I loved her attitude and her unique, yet familiar persona. She's like a sullen, hardened teenager, yet is an alien with some naive and disarming fish-out-of-water qualities. She was cool, and funny, and had a great arc with a good amount of depth. I'd love to see her again. She hangs out a lot with Scotty, and they make for some sharp scenes together. Who knows if it was a temptation, but Simon Pegg didn't abuse his writing powers and give himself anything more to do as Scotty as he did before; but Scotty has always been a character worth devoting a good amount of time to, and he did match that. He's capable of holding down scenes by himself, and does it with that patented Scottish attitude and wit to spare.
Am I missing someone? Ha -- just kidding. In movies like this, the lead is rarely the character I love most, but Chris Pine's Captain James T. Kirk will always be a character worth admiring, rooting for, and revolving an entire movie around. Here his arc was fairly predictable, but an avenue worth exploring and was handled well script-wise and performance-wise. There are no huge emotional scenes, but that doesn't matter with Pine. He mixes the subtle depths of Kirk evenly into every moment and brings an important weight to the story and his loyal, smirking, and heroic Captain. The villain he faces was a surprising downside. Idris Elba brings the intimidation and the turmoil, but unfortunately was landed with the side of the script that was dotted with holes. In the end Krall was too flimsy to be convincing or memorable. He got the job done, but only just.
In fact, that's a pretty accurate description of the film as a whole: it gets the job done. Not glamorously or impressively or mind-bendingly, but with a solid amount of fun and excitement, and a decent amount of throwing back and respect for what it is continuing. And the job really is to showcase the characters. What surrounds them may not be as spectacular as it has been before, but the characters themselves are every bit as worth spending time with as they ever were. The plot may not be terribly smart, but the smartest thing the film does was a great choice; to pair off the characters into groups were they brought out the best, and the most interesting sides in each other.
Beyond is an enjoyable caper into the unexplored reaches of space; comparatively inferior in quality to the installments actually helmed by Abrams, but for fans of the new franchise, no less worthwhile by its own right. In a few ways it is flawed superficially, but at its heart holds onto what makes these adventures worth the trip -- the iconic and lovable captain and crew of the USS Enterprise.
When the trailer released, I was one of few people who thought it promised good -- a promise that needed to be made for the fans nervous about J. J. Abrams handing over directing reins to Justin Lin. Through that admittedly iffy trailer I saw where I thought this film was headed, and I liked it. Still after a while my excitement took a beating, and I was hesitant to see the film as soon as I did. Not because I thought it wouldn't be good anymore, but because I thought I wouldn't be able to enjoy it as it was meant to be enjoyed. But I was right where it mattered and wrong where it mattered; Beyond does everything that I expected it'd do, and was able to put a smile on my face.
The third installment of the rebooted franchise dials back on the scale, and narrows its focuses to character and action for a pleasant episodic feel. Jim Kirk and his crew are cut off from the federation, stranded on a strange planet in the far reaches of the galaxy, and face a mysterious and intimidating threat which they face with bold determination.
 |
| This movie isn't perfect, but it's going in the right direction. So boldly go! |
Firstly, more than just the directing reins changed hands. This time round, Simon Pegg and Doug Jung did the writing, rather than J. J.'s regulars. The reason I had so much confidence in this movie from the start was because of Simon Pegg. Certainly less known as a writer, but anyone who knows his writing work knows that it's the type to inspire confidence. And he didn't fall short; to the uninitiated this film is indistinguishable from the last two. There's the same sharp action, the same comic relief that is actually funny and elicits a real laugh, the same serious tone used carefully to add depth and urgency, and those same "Star Trek" moments that cause cheesy grins.
But to those like me who are compelled to look under the surface, there are some differences. And differences I was all for, but these were not purposeful deviations from the formula, but rather elements that were attempts at copying previous successes that just don't land quite as confidently. Paying attention to the plot progression, a more than typical number of plot holes are distinguishable, and too much of the dialogue is used in exposition, trying to explain holes away. And there are a few contrivances that were necessary for the plot to work. There did seem to be a handful of moments of genuine inspiration -- and they were all kinds of fantastic -- but for the most part the plot exists to serve the action.
 |
| The best the plot does is create situations for the characters to shine. |
There was no shortage of memorable action set pieces though they were sometimes worked into the story less than gracefully. There were two shots where the CGI was noticeable and almost humorously bad, otherwise the special effects are fine, though not exactly evoking of awe either. It also loses a sense of sophistication that the previous films had, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. This film has a ragtag aura that is interestingly appealing. The only thing the more blunt action caused that I didn't like was that the fighting and action was filmed too close, and often with too low lighting for us to get the full effect. But not quite too much that you can't tell what's going on. The grandeur and beauty of the setting seems to be only shown off because it's obligatory; it's still got some great artistic imagery, but it doesn't linger like I found myself wishing it would.
The themes are simplistic and not particularly thought-provoking, but there is a charm to experiencing an action flick that doesn't try to shoehorn its themes. There's friendship and camaraderie going on that feels like it wasn't even done on purpose it's so natural. Give Justin Lin a large cast of oddball characters, and he can make them mesh; and these characters take to his treatment like they were made for it. Captain Kirk battling the odds with his two opposite sidekicks is sometimes the only thing we need. And when Bones and Spock have scenes together, which they do often, they lightly bounce their opposing worldviews back and forth with a casual depth that is subtly epic. Their scenes are also the most consistently funny, in a true, organic way.
 |
| Two sides of the same coin if ever two people fit the bill. |
Zachary Quinto has found that perfect balance of determined logic and suppressed but genuine emotion with his Spock. I doubt he'll ever be my favorite character, but the respect keeps going up. Bones is already one of my favorites though, and won't be losing his place any time soon. Karl Urban always has been, and continues to be a fantastic Bones. The rough, sarcastic edge, the way he embraces his humanity (the good with the bad), and his innate lovable charm is all effortless from Urban. He gets even more to do this time around, and proves he deserves it and more. This time it's Uhura (Zoe Saldana) and Sulu (John Cho) who fall slightly to the wayside -- comparatively. They still have whatever they had from the last movies, but don't really add anything new or fresh.
 |
| I'm sure they'll come back around soon. |
Ever underused is Chekov. Especially now, considering this is the last film in which the adorably quirky character will make an appearance. He was my favorite ever since he had all that trouble pronouncing his V's in movie one, and the Star Trek franchise won't be half as good in my eyes without him. Here he gets more to do than ever, but still isn't there nearly enough. The way the camera glances past him is maddeningly reminiscent of real life, but Anton Yelchin made the best of the part as he always did, and made the character unforgettable with his cute and awkward mannerisms, accent, and unconcealable charm. It's never pointed out to the audience even slightly, but I don't think I was seeing things when I noticed Chekov crushing on Jaylah, and it nearly broke me with adorableness. Chekov is an irreplaceable character -- there will be a gaping hole in every single installment to come.
 |
| I never knew you, but I'll miss you, and the characters you brought to life onscreen. |
Now Jaylah (Sofia Boutella) is the obligatory new allied character, and is the best yet. That chic totally rocked. I loved her attitude and her unique, yet familiar persona. She's like a sullen, hardened teenager, yet is an alien with some naive and disarming fish-out-of-water qualities. She was cool, and funny, and had a great arc with a good amount of depth. I'd love to see her again. She hangs out a lot with Scotty, and they make for some sharp scenes together. Who knows if it was a temptation, but Simon Pegg didn't abuse his writing powers and give himself anything more to do as Scotty as he did before; but Scotty has always been a character worth devoting a good amount of time to, and he did match that. He's capable of holding down scenes by himself, and does it with that patented Scottish attitude and wit to spare.
 |
| Her makeup is epic. And I love that Scotty calls her Lassie. And she calls him Montgomery Scotty! |
Am I missing someone? Ha -- just kidding. In movies like this, the lead is rarely the character I love most, but Chris Pine's Captain James T. Kirk will always be a character worth admiring, rooting for, and revolving an entire movie around. Here his arc was fairly predictable, but an avenue worth exploring and was handled well script-wise and performance-wise. There are no huge emotional scenes, but that doesn't matter with Pine. He mixes the subtle depths of Kirk evenly into every moment and brings an important weight to the story and his loyal, smirking, and heroic Captain. The villain he faces was a surprising downside. Idris Elba brings the intimidation and the turmoil, but unfortunately was landed with the side of the script that was dotted with holes. In the end Krall was too flimsy to be convincing or memorable. He got the job done, but only just.
 |
| He belongs in that captain's chair. |
In fact, that's a pretty accurate description of the film as a whole: it gets the job done. Not glamorously or impressively or mind-bendingly, but with a solid amount of fun and excitement, and a decent amount of throwing back and respect for what it is continuing. And the job really is to showcase the characters. What surrounds them may not be as spectacular as it has been before, but the characters themselves are every bit as worth spending time with as they ever were. The plot may not be terribly smart, but the smartest thing the film does was a great choice; to pair off the characters into groups were they brought out the best, and the most interesting sides in each other.
Beyond is an enjoyable caper into the unexplored reaches of space; comparatively inferior in quality to the installments actually helmed by Abrams, but for fans of the new franchise, no less worthwhile by its own right. In a few ways it is flawed superficially, but at its heart holds onto what makes these adventures worth the trip -- the iconic and lovable captain and crew of the USS Enterprise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)