In January I saw The Greatest Showman, and I've just realized that I never wrote a review for it! Oops. I have a perfect record of reviewing all movies I've seen in theaters since I started reviewing movies, so I definitely can't let that one fall through the cracks. Sadly, we didn't have time for The Death Cure, so that's been pushed into this month's agenda -- top priority.
February has lots to talk about -- good and bad -- so let's get to it! What looks good to you this month?
Peter Rabbit
Feb 9th; PG
Domhnall. Sweetie. What are you doing? Good grief this looks bad. At least all Daisy Ridley and Margot Robbie had to be convinced of was to lend their voices -- and I don't think James Corden needed convincing. But how in the world did they get Domhnall Gleeson to agree to do the live-action portion? They must have paid him a ton. He does look exactly like Mr. McGregor, so maybe they thought it was worth it. Even with this cast, I'll be steering clear. Far, far clear.
The 15:17 to Paris
Feb 9th: PG-13
Okay. First of all, this is an awesome true story. Second of all, it's a really neat idea to cast the real guys as themselves. But -- I still have that reservation on the artistic side that true stories rarely make good movies due to un-cinematic structure. Clint Eastwood is at the helm, and it's clear that a lot of effort was put into the movie, so who knows, maybe this will be the next Apollo 13, or, something close to it anyway. I'm definitely interested just because the attack on the train is supposed to play out exactly how it did in real life, so that would be cool to see. At any rate, reservations or no, this is one to keep an eye on.
The Female Brain
Feb 9th; NR
This movie doesn't look particularly good, but I can, occasionally, have simple tastes, and this has Toby Kebbell in it, so I'm on board.... for whenever its streaming on Amazon or what have you. The differences in the ways male and female brains work is great fodder for comedy, so we'll see if this movie mined the truth in that area, or if they just used tired old stereotypes and worked off the top of their head. That's sadly the more likely option.
Basmati Blues
Feb 9th; NR
All I'd heard about this movie was that it was a Brie Larson film and it was terrible. And I thought that was pretty strange because how could Brie Larson be in a movie and not make it at least decent by her presence? Then I watched the trailer, and it all made sense. Larson probably does enhance it, but it really looks THAT bad. It's American trying to feel Bollywood by making it a musical romance, but it all feels extremely cheap and weird. I may have to watch it streaming just to confirm. It really doesn't make sense.
Black Panther
Feb 16th; PG-13
This is the big one of the month I guess, but to me it could go either way. The trailer is bursting with style and energy, so if that translates to the actual movie it should be on those points alone a solid flick. And it's Marvel, so you know they have their winning formula for crowd-pleasing movies. But I'm personally getting tired of the formula, and if all the movie is, is cool and stylish action played over a fourmula plot, then I might not be disappointed, but I won't be impressed either. And I want to be impressed. Also, early reviews are doing a lot of praising of what the movie "has to say" and, as you may know from my opinion on Civil War, I hate it when movies preach at you. Preaching does not equal plot or character development. Still, there's a chance here, with a great cast and a lead character I already like, so let's go -- impress me if you can!
Early Man
Feb 16th; PG
I'm trying to figure out if I'm required to see this, because on one hand, I've fallen in love with stop-motion and have been trying to watch all stop-motion movies I can find. On the other hand this lumpy clay style of making the dolls is my least favorite. And Chicken Run practically traumatized me as a kid. But then, I like the comedy style, and it has a good cast (Tom Hiddleston, Eddie Redmayne!) and a neat plot. The great thing about stop-motion is that it's so hard to do, people don't actually bother to make the movie unless it's a story they care about. So... yeah. I guess I am pretty much required to watch it sometime... but not only that -- I think I want to!
The Party
Feb 16th: R
I see Cillian Murphy, and I'm sold. Simple. Beyond that, this one has more potential than the one I'll probably watch only because Toby Kebbell is in it -- this one looks genuinely funny and genuinely dramatic (though it may still prove not to be my cup of tea) and I really, really, like that it's in black and white. Like the appeal level for the B&W is just under Cillain Murphy. And besides him there's quite a few familiar and talented faces. Good praise among the critics, which is a good sign too. I would like to RSVP as "coming."
The Boy Downstairs
Feb 16th; PG-13
Classic -- and I mean CLASSIC indie rom-com-dram. It has all the earmarks. The lead is even a writer. I'd watch it. That's all.
Annihilation
Feb 23rd; R
Well, I don't care for Natalie Portman, but other than her being the lead, this movie has nothing in it that isn't interesting to me. It makes me think of Arrival, except with horror and fantasy-feeling scifi added in. Based on a book, so now I'm gonna have to check that out and see if it's worth a read. I'm always excited to see a big-budged, full-fledged scifi film coming round the bend, and this one looks so cool that the Natalie Portman thing isn't even leaving a dent. Plus there's Oscar Isaac, even if he is probably in a coma most of the film, so that helps a lot. But yeah, I am here for the scifi!
Game Night
Feb 23rd; R
This trailer is on the verge of being funny. On the verge. It's so close that I want to watch the movie to see if it actually succeeds there. I don't think Rachel McAdams is capable of doing pure comedy. Heck, I don't think Jason Bateman is capable of pure comedy, but he at least has loads more experience. If they put enough drama in the mix it might work, but people like Bill Murray are legends for a reason. I'm not sure about Kyle Chandler, either. Actually, the funniest person in this trailer is the dude from USS Callister and he didn't even say anything. (I'm sure he has a bigger part in the movie.) The premise is really good, and if they go where they seem to want to, making a Clue-type movie, it could be good. But, I don't think they're going to succeed. They don't appear to... have all the pieces.
Mute
Feb 23rd; NR
Duncan Jones' new original film is a Netflix release, and I just forgot about all of the above movies. I want to see this so much and I won't even have to leave my house to do it! The trailer is pretty vague and confusing, but I only watched it for this post anyway -- I would would watch anything by Duncan Jones without a trailer. Moon is one of my all-time favorite scifi movies, and Source Code is also great film. Warcraft was pretty bad, but hey, that one wasn't original, so... This one stars Alexander Skarsgård (of the Skarsgård acting family) as a mute guy. And Paul Rudd is in it. The scifi world looks awesome too, but even without all that I'd still be here. Because Duncan Jones.
Altered Carbon
Feb 2nd; Netflix
Don't get this and the above mixed up -- the trailer covers are laughably similar! If Mute doesn't count as scifi noir, then this one certainly does. Blade Runner vibes everywhere. This one's a Netflix TV series, which has it's own pros and cons. And if I base it solely on the trailer I might not like this one as much even with noir mystery element, but we'll see. Oh yes, we will see. I now officially declare February to be a Month of Science Fiction. I am a very happy camper right now. Even if all the scifi releases disappoint, right now, the anticipation is great.
Showing posts with label James Corden. Show all posts
Showing posts with label James Corden. Show all posts
Thursday, February 1, 2018
Saturday, January 3, 2015
Into the Woods
(Mild spoilers throughout -- major spoilers have a warning.)
Into the Woods -- where magic is real, as are monsters and witches and giants, but wishes are the most dangerous of all. Oh, fairytales.
With Frozen, I discovered that I am not a fan of the new trend Disney has started (and convinced the rest of the world to join in on) of taking fairytales and twisting them so hard that the entire point of the tale falls out -- and with Into the Woods, that discovery is given reinforcement.
The Baker (James Corden) and his wife (Emily Blunt) cannot have children, and one day a witch, (Meryl Streep) tells them that it's because of her curse. She offers to reverse the curse for them though, telling them to find four things for her; a cape red as blood, a cow white as milk, a slipper pure as gold, and a lock of hair yellow as corn. They set off into the woods to find these things. At the same time there is a little girl who wears a red cape going to visit her grandmother, a boy taking his white cow to be sold, a poor girl named Cinderella (Anna Kendrick) who wants to go to the king's festival, and a girl with long yellow hair who is trapped in a tower with no doors. All these people make a wish -- and then they come true.
The acting and singing quality can be separated into three categories; people who were good at both, people good at acting, and people good at singing. Although I wouldn't go so far as to say anyone was bad at either.
Topping the "good at both" is Meryl Streep, who does everything she does exceptionally, and does no less here with a superb, lovely voice, and the highest quality acting. Next is James Corden, the hero of the story, and the one I was most interested to see, and he didn't disappoint -- he is goofy but sincere and noble, always at the heart of the story, and has a fine, distinctive voice. The two children of the show, Jack (Daniel Huttlestone) and Little Red Riding Hood (Lilla Crawford), not well-known actors, may have been cast more for their voices but they both gave fine performances and belong in this category too.
Those better at the acting: With Emily Blunt it's only the greatness of her acting performance that dulls her singing by comparison, but really she's a pro at both. The biggest difference is with Johnny Depp as The Wolf. He is simultaneously creepy and funny, but once he starts to sing you know that he was cast because he's Johnny Depp, and not because he could do his song real justice. The howl at the end was good though! Then there's Chris Pine's Prince Charming. He actually impresses as a Prince who you might imagine might not have much character to work with, but what he lacked vocally was noticeable because of the duet with Prince #2 which was downright hilarious and brilliant, but the difference of skill between the two was noticeable.
Good voices, not-so-very-convincing acting -- Prince #2, Repunzel's Prince (Billy Magnussen) was definitely cast for his vocal talent and good looks way before his acting talent. He is the best vocally out of the whole male cast, and fortunately, doesn't have much to do on the serious acting front, and when he does, it is opposite Repunzel, (Mackenzie Mauzy) who is a good match for him, falling into this category as well. Anna Kendrick only barely wavers towards the singing side -- she makes a fine, but slightly modern feeling Cinderella, with a sweet and gentle personality, and, well, a pitch-perfect kind of voice.
The most basic quality of fairytales is the happily ever after, and while I wouldn't say Into the Woods has a bad ending at all, it's more better-than-before-and-bittersweet-for-a-while-after than straight up happily-forever, and some of the characters were worthy of the happy end they were denied. Denied, it seems, simply so we could be taught a lesson or two. (Or slapped in the face for enjoying classic Disney fairytales.) There were a good-sized handful of little morals to this story, (though they were mostly vague or hard to decipher) and interestingly, one was "morality is what you decide it is," which effectively allows us to ignore all the other lessons.
The biggest one was the classic saying, "be careful what you wish for," as all the characters who make a wish are granted it at a great cost. (A cost they are unaware of no less, which goes against fairytale rules itself.) This one doesn't exactly translate to the real world though, since here, wishes to marry a prince don't typically see reality's light. Certainly wishing can distract us from living our lives, and even when they do come true they're often not as fulfilling as we imagined, but not all dreams must be traded for something else we value.
Another quality of the fairytale genre is that the good characters see good in their lives, and the bad, bad, and the line between the two is easily distinguishable. Perhaps it was because of that one "lesson" but the moral and immoral character are all jumbled together and basically all get the same treatment.
(Major Spoilers! Next four paragraphs.)
In the case of Cinderella and her Prince, she shouldn't have married him after knowing him three days, (but we already know that, now, don't we Anna?) so you can question her judgment if you like, but what did she ever do to deserve a scoundrel for a husband? She deserved a real Prince Charming. (If you want to destroy the idea of the good Prince, the honorable girl who marries him has to go too -- make one of the ugly stepsisters get him.) Anyway, in the end her reason for leaving him was that she wanted something in between her life at home and her life with him, but that was only to justify the in between she gets -- and it would have been much simpler for her to leave him for his infidelity alone.
And then the case of the Baker, and by association, his Wife -- and yes, she didn't resist very much as the Prince seduced her, but if he didn't meet with an untimely, anticlimactic death-by-giant, then why did she? Her death punished her husband, who, out of all the characters was the most deserving. He deserved his wish and it was the most expensive, and he deserved a happy ending but there was none. Hopeful, yes, and I'm glad for that, but not happy.
Ultimately, the root of my disappointment here it that there was no good example of a truly loving, healthy, romantic relationship here -- the Baker and Wife had the potential, but it was cut off in its tracks before they could pass their test -- what "lesson" are we supposed to learn from this?
Also, if Rapunzel was the Baker's sister, then why did they never get to meet? That plot line was dropped the moment it was brought up. Just a random question.
(End Spoilers)
One unique thing about this film I enjoyed was how much it felt like a theatre show. It was a little unlikely and convenient how characters wandering in the woods could suddenly come upon someone who logically shouldn't have been near them, but I was able to suspend belief because of the stage-like quality. This also allowed my slight disappointment at not seeing Jack in the Giant kingdom or Cinderella at the ball to be excused. And I absolutely loved the way they did the "curtain call" like out of an old 80's film.
Another neat thing was the return to original Grimm Brothers fairytale form -- occasional gruesomeness and darkness and all. That all only lasted through the first two acts though, and after that, they just had to make it their own and give it a nice twist -- wrench, more like -- and the third act as a result is jarringly different from the rest, and disturbing in a different way. One good thing that lasted through to the end though, was the neat, intricate way the multiple stories were woven together, as if the connections had always belonged that way. This was manifested in the song "Your Fault" which was my favorite part of act 3, as everyone gets their turn of being blamed for the group's situation, and we are reminded of the tiniest little things that connected them.
"Careful the things you say / Children will listen / Careful the things you do / Children will see / And learn" says the song, and it is one of few truths in this story, but unfortunately it failed to take its own advice. Most of its message was just a jumbled, confused mess, but that should be expected from a strictly secular story attempting a morality lesson. The end does see a glimmer of hope, and a generous sprinkling of love and nobility, and on the technical side this was a successful and grand production -- unique, funny and charming, but perhaps not as sincere as it would like us to believe.
I wish...
Into the Woods -- where magic is real, as are monsters and witches and giants, but wishes are the most dangerous of all. Oh, fairytales.
With Frozen, I discovered that I am not a fan of the new trend Disney has started (and convinced the rest of the world to join in on) of taking fairytales and twisting them so hard that the entire point of the tale falls out -- and with Into the Woods, that discovery is given reinforcement.
The Baker (James Corden) and his wife (Emily Blunt) cannot have children, and one day a witch, (Meryl Streep) tells them that it's because of her curse. She offers to reverse the curse for them though, telling them to find four things for her; a cape red as blood, a cow white as milk, a slipper pure as gold, and a lock of hair yellow as corn. They set off into the woods to find these things. At the same time there is a little girl who wears a red cape going to visit her grandmother, a boy taking his white cow to be sold, a poor girl named Cinderella (Anna Kendrick) who wants to go to the king's festival, and a girl with long yellow hair who is trapped in a tower with no doors. All these people make a wish -- and then they come true.
 |
| The Baker and his Wife -- the two main reasons I wanted to see this movie. |
The acting and singing quality can be separated into three categories; people who were good at both, people good at acting, and people good at singing. Although I wouldn't go so far as to say anyone was bad at either.
Topping the "good at both" is Meryl Streep, who does everything she does exceptionally, and does no less here with a superb, lovely voice, and the highest quality acting. Next is James Corden, the hero of the story, and the one I was most interested to see, and he didn't disappoint -- he is goofy but sincere and noble, always at the heart of the story, and has a fine, distinctive voice. The two children of the show, Jack (Daniel Huttlestone) and Little Red Riding Hood (Lilla Crawford), not well-known actors, may have been cast more for their voices but they both gave fine performances and belong in this category too.
 |
| She probably could have put in half the effort she did, and still have come out on top. |
Those better at the acting: With Emily Blunt it's only the greatness of her acting performance that dulls her singing by comparison, but really she's a pro at both. The biggest difference is with Johnny Depp as The Wolf. He is simultaneously creepy and funny, but once he starts to sing you know that he was cast because he's Johnny Depp, and not because he could do his song real justice. The howl at the end was good though! Then there's Chris Pine's Prince Charming. He actually impresses as a Prince who you might imagine might not have much character to work with, but what he lacked vocally was noticeable because of the duet with Prince #2 which was downright hilarious and brilliant, but the difference of skill between the two was noticeable.
 |
| This scene was just the best. |
Good voices, not-so-very-convincing acting -- Prince #2, Repunzel's Prince (Billy Magnussen) was definitely cast for his vocal talent and good looks way before his acting talent. He is the best vocally out of the whole male cast, and fortunately, doesn't have much to do on the serious acting front, and when he does, it is opposite Repunzel, (Mackenzie Mauzy) who is a good match for him, falling into this category as well. Anna Kendrick only barely wavers towards the singing side -- she makes a fine, but slightly modern feeling Cinderella, with a sweet and gentle personality, and, well, a pitch-perfect kind of voice.
 |
| "On the Steps of the Palace" may be my favorite song of the show, and I loved the whole way the scene was done. |
The most basic quality of fairytales is the happily ever after, and while I wouldn't say Into the Woods has a bad ending at all, it's more better-than-before-and-bittersweet-for-a-while-after than straight up happily-forever, and some of the characters were worthy of the happy end they were denied. Denied, it seems, simply so we could be taught a lesson or two. (Or slapped in the face for enjoying classic Disney fairytales.) There were a good-sized handful of little morals to this story, (though they were mostly vague or hard to decipher) and interestingly, one was "morality is what you decide it is," which effectively allows us to ignore all the other lessons.
Another quality of the fairytale genre is that the good characters see good in their lives, and the bad, bad, and the line between the two is easily distinguishable. Perhaps it was because of that one "lesson" but the moral and immoral character are all jumbled together and basically all get the same treatment.
 |
| About to enter the dangerous Wood of Spoilers! |
(Major Spoilers! Next four paragraphs.)
In the case of Cinderella and her Prince, she shouldn't have married him after knowing him three days, (but we already know that, now, don't we Anna?) so you can question her judgment if you like, but what did she ever do to deserve a scoundrel for a husband? She deserved a real Prince Charming. (If you want to destroy the idea of the good Prince, the honorable girl who marries him has to go too -- make one of the ugly stepsisters get him.) Anyway, in the end her reason for leaving him was that she wanted something in between her life at home and her life with him, but that was only to justify the in between she gets -- and it would have been much simpler for her to leave him for his infidelity alone.
And then the case of the Baker, and by association, his Wife -- and yes, she didn't resist very much as the Prince seduced her, but if he didn't meet with an untimely, anticlimactic death-by-giant, then why did she? Her death punished her husband, who, out of all the characters was the most deserving. He deserved his wish and it was the most expensive, and he deserved a happy ending but there was none. Hopeful, yes, and I'm glad for that, but not happy.
Ultimately, the root of my disappointment here it that there was no good example of a truly loving, healthy, romantic relationship here -- the Baker and Wife had the potential, but it was cut off in its tracks before they could pass their test -- what "lesson" are we supposed to learn from this?
Also, if Rapunzel was the Baker's sister, then why did they never get to meet? That plot line was dropped the moment it was brought up. Just a random question.
(End Spoilers)
 |
| Now I've said my peace, on to the more technical things. |
 |
| Here's a cool tidbit: the ugly stepsister on the left is Lucy Punch, who played the exact same part in Ella Enchanted. |
Another neat thing was the return to original Grimm Brothers fairytale form -- occasional gruesomeness and darkness and all. That all only lasted through the first two acts though, and after that, they just had to make it their own and give it a nice twist -- wrench, more like -- and the third act as a result is jarringly different from the rest, and disturbing in a different way. One good thing that lasted through to the end though, was the neat, intricate way the multiple stories were woven together, as if the connections had always belonged that way. This was manifested in the song "Your Fault" which was my favorite part of act 3, as everyone gets their turn of being blamed for the group's situation, and we are reminded of the tiniest little things that connected them.
"Careful the things you say / Children will listen / Careful the things you do / Children will see / And learn" says the song, and it is one of few truths in this story, but unfortunately it failed to take its own advice. Most of its message was just a jumbled, confused mess, but that should be expected from a strictly secular story attempting a morality lesson. The end does see a glimmer of hope, and a generous sprinkling of love and nobility, and on the technical side this was a successful and grand production -- unique, funny and charming, but perhaps not as sincere as it would like us to believe.
I wish...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)