Upcoming Movie Roundup - October

As I predicted, I didn't go to the theater in September. I am still interested to see The Magnificent Seven and Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children though, in spite of the not-fantastic reviews, and Deepwater Horizon a little more than before, because of the not-at-all-bad reviews.

I may not get to the theater again this month, (unless I make a point to go, which I may try) as there are no must-see-in-theater releases, but there certainly are a few very interesting releases that may become must-sees if they turn out as good as they look.

Did you see anything in September? Anything look good to you in October?



The Girl on the Train
Oct 7th; R
I read the book. And I enjoyed it, which was nice since I've been having bad luck with books lately. But after reading it and rewatching the trailer, I have very little interest and very little confidence in this film. Emily Blunt and Haley Bennett are well-cast I think, but otherwise -- even though I love Luke Evans and Rebecca Ferguson -- it's kinda off. Also the film isn't set in England, but NYC, which takes away a LOT of appeal for me. And what's the point of doing that, anyway? Unnecessary changes are indicators of bad adaptations for me. They've also amped up the sexiness a whole lot. So maybe they're trying to increase appeal and tweak it to be more exciting. It is an introverted story, and the book's strongest aspect was the writing style, which can't translate. If it releases to acclaim I'll probably watch it someday, but as of now they've lost me. We'll see if I'm the only one.



The Accountant
Oct 14th; R
This is an excellent trailer. And it looks to be a very unique story, and Ben Affleck is always at his best when he does the trifecta of writing directing and starring, so I'm pretty confident about this film's quality already. Based on the title only I was wondering how exciting it could be, but after watching the trailer, I think it's got that covered too.Very interested to see how this does.




The River Thief
Oct 14th (limited); NR
Ever since I saw Super 8 I've been waiting for Joel Courtney to be in more movies, and finally one has crossed my path. You can't tell much about plot from this trailer, but the write-up makes it out to be interesting and promising. And it certainly has a beautiful look to it which you can see from the trailer -- lots of great shots. In a lot of ways it reminds me of Mud, which is very appealing to me, since that one of favorite films. If it turns out half as good a Mud it'd still be a good movie!




Jack Reacher: Never Go Back
Oct 21st; NR
(I can't find a MPAA rating, but I'm assuming it'll be PG-13.) The first Jack Reacher film didn't impress me much, but right now the sequel's actually looking to be an improvement! Firstly, Tom Cruise doesn't just do sequels for the sake of doing a sequel. The way I heard it he wasn't even interested in a sequel until he had a good idea for one. Then there's the addition of Cobie Smulders who is excellent at being an action heroine. She might be the biggest appeal of this actually. And of course there's the fact that there's no Mission: Impossible film this year, so why not? You gotta have you Tom Cruise action flick fix!




Keeping Up with the Joneses 
Oct 21st; PG-13
I'm gonna go ahead and include this movie since I've watched the trailer twice now, though I'm not very interested in the film. And by "not very interested" I mean "really really not interested almost at all." The most interesting part is Gal Gadot who is cool, and it would be neat to see her play a spy... and comedy for that matter too. The premise is not bad, if typical, and could make for a fun action comedy, but based on the trailer, it's not gonna be of good quality in either the comedy or the action sides.




In a Valley of Violence
Oct 21st; R
I like the look of this movie. The trailer is very simple, exposition-heavy, and not terribly eye-catching, but that is actually what got my attention. It feels classic, like an honest-to-goodness straight-forward western tale of old. Ethan Hawke is the lead, John Travolta is the baddie, and Karen Gillan's there too. Yeah. I'm liking the look of this movie. A lot.

Now You See Me

"... now you don't."

A common, if catchy magic show phrase, and title to a "magic trick" movie that aspires to be a way-beyond common, mind-bending trick of a movie. Does it succeed? Well...

Daniel (Jesse Eisenberg) is the classic magician, the leading man with all the charisma, Henley (Isla Fisher) used to be Daniel's "pretty assistant" but has since moved on to her own show; Merritt (Woody Harrelson) is a has-been mentalist who now mostly swindles people out of their money with his talents, and Jack (Dave Franco) is very talented in every way that sleight of hand and misdirection tricks can be used for dangerous and illegal purposes (i.e. he's a glorified pick-pocket) and he can pick locks too. These four talented but small-time magicians are brought together for a combined act by mysterious person for a mysterious purpose. And when they rob a bank, during their show, with the help of the unsuspecting bank owner, the strange case is assigned to FBI agent and skeptic Dylan Rhodes. (Mark Ruffalo) He and Interpol agent Alma (Mélanie Laurent) try hard, but always stay frustratingly a step or two behind "The Four Horsemen" as their master plan unfolds.

What a cast, huh? And I didn't even mention yet that Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman have roles. Ah, now I have. The cast is what drew me to this film, but when there are so many characters played by big names, someone's probably gonna get left out, and in this case, interestingly, it was... everyone. It's hard to identify with any of these characters, which is disappointing, because they are mostly a group of potentially interesting and unique characters, and enjoying characters is way more fun when their potential is realized.

Henley, Daniel, Merritt, and Jack, ready to (maybe-not) blow your mind.

The script is the villain here; I can't blame the actors for the lack of character. In fact, Harrelson does a great job with his limited time and ends up with the best role in the film. Perhaps it's because the role is a mostly comedic role that wouldn't have much depth anyway? Still. Eisenberg and Franco stand out only a little less; Eisenberg either because he's the leader and got more screen-time and lines, (he get the best part of the whole movie, right at the beginning) or simply because I enjoy the actor, and therefore paid more attention to him. The same with Franco (he's a novelty to me because I didn't know James Franco had a brother) except he got some great action scenes.

And when a movie is lacking in the character department, the next best thing is the action scenes. The action is well-done but not extraordinary and any way. (Though Franco does some fighting that looks like it requires a bit of real talent.) Most of the razzle-dazzle comes in the form of CGI during astonishing magic tricks... too astonishing for explanations to be viable apparently. While immersed in the movie it doesn't really occur to you, but afterward you feel a little cheated of really impressive trickery. The "magic tricks" put just a tinge too much emphasis on the magic part. Misdirection, however, is a real strong suit.

When action and magic is combined, the result is many chase-scenes featuring Mark Ruffalo not catching anything.

Okay, I've run out of things I want to mention that are spoiler-free. I'll tackle spoiler topics in a moment, but first I'll wrap up for anyone who hasn't seen the movie and don't want anything spoiled.

Ultimately, Now You See Me wasn't at all a bad movie. I'm simultaneously impressed and disappointed. It didn't have any moral or uplifting message to take away, but it was mostly clean (for today's PG-13 standards) and I did enjoy watching it, it was sparkling, amusing and diverting, but honestly, the trailer was just as deep as the movie, and the characters (other than Ruffalo who got next to nothing in the trailer) get no more development than what those three little minutes show. But a cheap trick still tricks, right? This movie succeeded in doing what it was meant to; the result just wasn't what most would hope for.

*SPOILER WARNING: Major spoilers from here on!*

I shall reveal all!

In the end, all the strange character development problems finally makes sense (still doesn't work though). Throughout the movie "The Four Horsemen" are mysterious unrelatable characters, and Dylan is the relatable one chasing them. The twist reveals that Dylan is actually the one who brought them together. He's part of a mysterious magician society, and the whole scheme is to test the Four to see if they are worthy to join the society, and to take his revenge on Morgan Freeman's character. And that's all well and good, I didn't see it coming, blah blah blah, but it ruined the characters. Now, the Four are the tricked along with us, but we still can't relate, because they were never developed properly. And Dylan isn't relatable anymore because the person we identified with is suddenly all an act. And on top of that, there weren't even any clues to the truth -- the only way to guess the twist was to guess. They should have taken more cues from movies like The Prestige and The Illusionist, though I do give them credit for thinking the twist through; it's not flawed plot-wise as far as I can tell. I could watch it again, but it doesn't seem quite worth it. Once you see it's all a trick, the magic is gone.

One more picture to bookend the spoiler section. The End. Goodnight.

The Great Gatsby (2013)

Baz Luhrmann's The Great Gatsby starts out exactly as F. Scott Fitzgerld's stupendous, classic book -- "In my younger and more vulnerable years..." Nick Carraway, who is now apparently depressed and alcoholic stares dramatically out the snowy window, and relays his story to his doctor. The story of how he moved to West Egg, just outside NYC, into a tiny cottage squeezed between two huge mansions, one of which was always alive with wild parties and belonged to a man called Gatsby, and what happened there that summer of 1922.

Spoilers ahead, sweetie. If you haven't read the book, you shouldn't be watching this movie. Or reading this review!

The movie, also like the book is (almost) always in Nick's perspective. His doctor encourages him to write everything down, and he narrates as he does throughout the whole film. Often, ruining a moment he should be only witnessing by jumping in and whacking us over the head with the subtlety that we would apparently never understand without his helpful insight. If you beat someone to death with subtlety, is it still subtle? Tobey Maguire plays Nick, and reminded me very little of his Peter Parker, and when he wasn't smashing his "insights" over our heads, or (over) dramatically quoting the book word for word, I liked him. Still, he was too involved in the story, not a simple observer who reserves judgment. Somehow he was inserted too much into the story, but simultaneously removed, as his entire relationship with Jordan was completely cut.

Nick trying to work. He didn't spend ALL summer observing other people's drama.

Gatsby is the main guy here, obviously. Rich, mysterious, personable Jay Gatsby. Hopeful to a fault. And Leonardo DiCaprio is just as good as he should be in the role. Let me just go ahead and point out that everything in this movie is overdone, most obviously the acting, and if I can, I blame the director, not the actors. That being said, there are some very good things about DiCaprio's Gatsby, and some not-so-good things. The way he said his catchphrase, "old sport" for instance, feels unnatural. It's either because that's how the director wanted it, to emphasize that Gatsby wasn't naturally that way, or, DiCaprio just couldn't pull it off. You guessed it; I've decided to lean towards the former. In general, DiCaprio's performance is very good; he does especially well with Gatsby's mysteriousness, and the desperate way he pursues his dream. His Gatsby is also obviously a man who has worked hard to make himself appear to be someone he naturally isn't.

The mysterious Gatsby.

Now Daisy Buchanan, that beautiful, conflicted girl whose voice is probably the most perfectly described in history. I knew from the moment I saw who was playing her that if anyone could do her justice, it was her; Carey Mulligan. Not only does she fit the part physically, but her voice seems to naturally be exactly what Fitzgerald heard as he wrote those lines about murmuring, music and money. One thing I didn't consider though was the character, and after the movie was over, I realized that Mulligan's Daisy was too likable. I shouldn't be surprised, it's very hard to make Carey Mulligan dislikable, and I doubt that Luhrmann wanted to make her so -- who'd want to watch a romance between two dislikable people? At times she sounded like she was trying too hard to get the voice right, and she didn't murmur enough for me, but otherwise she was exquisite, and I still maintain that she is the perfect choice for Daisy. Luhrmann just didn't know how to use her correctly.

Beautiful Daisy.

Her husband Tom Buchanan is the main character I have the least complaints about. He is undeniably a dislikable character, and played wonderfully well by Joel Edgerton. He lends a kind of tenderness to the character that I saw in the book, and was very pleased when it not only showed in the movie, but wasn't overdone -- I credit it solely to the actor. And of course his violent, racist, and other dislikable traits were there, and done very well. The only thing concerning his character that I missed was when Nick runs into him on the street at the end and shakes his hand. I thought it was an important scene that helps give the story its conclusion, and completes the character arc of both Tom and Daisy. But hey, what do I know, right?

Tom. "One of those men who reach such an acute limited excellence at twenty-one that everything afterward savors of anti-climax."

At first I thought Tom's mistress Myrtle Wilson was strangely cast as the young, cute, sweetly voiced Isla Fisher, but she impressed when she got the chance, which was basically just her introductory scene, but still. She may not have been like I imagined her, but she got the job done admirably. Same goes for her husband George Wilson played by Jason Clarke, except his appearance was considerably more like I imagined him. I would have been happy to see both of the characters get more development, and I think it would have been good for the movie.

Myrtle makes her grand entrance as her men have a chat.

Newcomer Elizabeth Debicki plays Jordan Baker the elegant golf star and fellow observer with Nick. I thought she was a good choice for the role and really enjoyed her part, but her character seems to be the one that ended up mostly on the cutting room floor. She's really only used when needed to develop the story, or is there when she's supposed to be because the novel dictated it. And as I mentioned her and Nick's relationship was almost totally missing; it only progressed as far as it needed to, to develop Gatsby's plot, then was left hanging there uselessly, disappointingly.

Lovely. If only she could have played her part to it's potential.

Now I'm probably going to shock you, and say that I thought that Jay-Z's rap score was a very bold and surprisingly fitting move. I liked the way the cool, upbeat modern music blended with the cool, upbeat music of the twenties, it was very sharp. And speaking of sharp, the costumes! I love twenties costumes, and these, mixed with high fashion, "vintage" tends of today were particularly suave, bold and zesty. I fell in love with Jordan's lavender hat, and Gastby's wardrobe was spot-on and immaculate. Neither the score nor the costumes were truly authentic, but they fit in the style of the picture, making it more relevant to modern times, and really helped amplify the spectacle.

And what a spectacle it was. Nick never describes Gatsby's parties in the movie, (though he describes plenty of other obvious things) for one very good reason; he really doesn't need to. The parties are alive with bright colors, music, noise and people, nearly overwhelming the senses... and I didn't even see it in 3D. The problem occurs when the party is over, and a particular sequence is supposed to be mellower, but attempts to make it more upbeat and dazzling only annoy. The party in Tom and Myrtle's apartment got that treatment and was made way wilder than the book's description implied. During that scene I sat wondering what in the world was going on, hoping the rest of the movie wasn't going to be changed like it, and missing Fitzgerald's description of no one being able find each other in the thick cigarette smoke.

People party at Gatsby's place!

During other sequences, the "glitz-y treatment" results in some weird, distracting computer effects, like flash-backs appearing in the clouds, or Nick speaking lines as they appear in the falling snowflakes. It really snaps you out of the experience. So while they're putting text on the screen, they might as well have put some in flashing red that proclaims "THIS PART IS STRAIGHT FROM THE BOOK" because someone was obviously very proud of the fact, (whenever it was a fact) and it's already being screamed out as loudly as subtext can be -- just go the extra step, and it'll even be ironic!

This Gatsby is soaring in glamorous fashion and overflowing with unique style, but the only way it's like the book is that it's literally (word for word) like the book! Practically everything happens, yet almost nothing is right. Where are the intricacies and subtleties, the real life, the laid back humor, and the wonder? Gatsby and Daisy's over-the-top romance take precedence over everything that really resonates and makes you think when it's all over. Just before Gatsby dies, and falls slow-mo into his pool, he whispers, "Daisy" and words appear on the screen one last time -- "You can start crying now." (Okay, not that last part) Gatsby was obsessed with Daisy, but if we know better, we then begin to miss everything that was brushed aside for some pointless tragic romance. And in that last glimpse of his handsome face floating under digital water, there is no realism; no grim epiphany that Gatsby wasted his life chasing that dream that was already behind him, and died carelessly, alone and friendless; nothing more than a briefly dazzling carnival attraction. That's what this movie is too -- a two-hour showcase of digital beauty, fireworks and parties, and romance. A dazzling, hollow shell.

It's hard to live up to such standards as Fiztgerald set, and this movie does get it half exceptionally right, with its near-flawless cast, and breath-taking sets. I also give them the credit of at least attempting to capture the complexities of the novel, but I've come to the conclusion that The Great Gatsby is just an un-filmable book. What would the book be anyway, without "Carraway's" thoughts and observations, and our unlimited access to his mind? But including them in the movies is next to impossible. Nothing has worked yet, but so far Luhrmann has put in the best attempt. When it wasn't bothering me, I enjoyed it, and if the title wasn't The Great Gatsby, I would dismiss it satisfied, as an incredibly dazzling, slightly depressing film.

Number 7!

Rise of the Guardians

A while ago, I published a short anticipation post, Upcoming Movie: Rise of the Guardians, where I explained my interest in this DreamWorks animation. Short short version: it was because of the actors lending their voices to the characters. I was hoping the rest of the animated flick would... rise to the level of the talented, uniquely voiced actors starring.

Sadly, when it released and medium reviews came in, my hopes fell a little ways - not all the way - just enough to keep me away from the theater and 3D glasses. I finally got around to watching it yesterday.

Cheers!

Like any movie that involves Santa Claus, Rise of the Guardians is pretty much all about keeping kiddies believing in its fantasy characters. If the kids don't believe in the Guardians, they lose their power, so the bad guy - the Boogeyman - Pitch, has an evil plan to cause all the kids of the world to stop believing in them, so he can take over their dreams, replacing them with nightmares, and (therefore?) take over the world. To prevent this, the Man on the Moon chooses a new Guardian; Jack Frost.

If this sounds confusing, it's because it is. And too complicated for me to bother explaining any more - the first thirty minutes was almost totally spent in set-up. But essentially, Jack (Chris Pine) teams up with the existing Guardians, Santa (Alec Baldwin), the Easter Bunny (Hugh Jackman and his Aussie accent), the Tooth Fairy (Isla Fisher), and the voiceless Sandman, to defeat Jude Law's Pitch, doing his very best Loki impression.

One of my favorite things about animated movies: actor/character promo shots! Baldwin totally ruined the pattern though...

My instinct was right; the actors - or the actor's voices rather - where the best part of the film, but they still weren't as great as I was hoping. Hugh Jackman delivering practically nothing but punch lines was probably the best, and Isla Fisher, rambling and murmuring, the worst. The others had good moments and bad moments, easily defined; the serious moments were really forced (possibly due to having no one to play off of when recording lines alone?) I have to give Chris Pine credit though; he handled his lot of serious moments fairly well. And Alec Baldwin's Russian accent was funny addition. Jude Law had to be my favorite though - the whole movie was worth watching simply to hear him say "Oh, I thought I heard the clippity-clop of a unicorn." I also liked a neat effect as he would monologue while disappearing and re-appearing at varying distances, his voice would fade in and out, and the echo would change. Then he would suddenly be loud again, and our hero would wheel around to find him standing behind him in traditional creepy-baddie fashion.

So, I just made the connection that his black horses are nightmares. Duhh...

But that brings me to a few things that went wrong. Pitch is not the only character able to fly around and move inexplicably fast. They all can. And of course it made for a lot of location changes. Really fast ones. They're in the sky one moment, then in an alley, then a park, then suddenly somewhere where it's daytime. It got dizzying, and obviously was all only to show off the animation and 3D, and while I don't know about the 3D, the animation was nothing special compared to Disney and Pixar these days. There was one striking moment I can recall when Pitch and Jack have a Jedi-like standoff, but otherwise, Jack's hair was pretty much the only thing worth a good look.

Behold. The hair.

So I suppose this was done make use of some 3D gloss, and draw in little kids to the theater, and trick parents into bringing them by casting big-name actors. I don't know if the story was capable of being a truly great film by my taste (I never did that "Santa Claus" thing, so it holds very little charm for me) but it certainly could have been much better. Another mediocre attempt results in failed potential. Fortunately, it didn't disappoint me much; after all I never had anything much invested in it's quality, just a hankering to hear something new from a few actors I like. And that's what I got, along with a bonus of a mini Avengers-like adventure that is sometimes funny, has a few cute moments, and some interesting details.

-- 3/5 stars.