I didn't see a single movie in theaters in August, so I guess that means the summer season is over. I still want to see the indies I mentioned, but will have to wait for them. I did watch The Defenders on Netflix, and it was worse than my low expectations were expecting; absolutely pathetic, and the worst thing Netflix's Marvel has done, which is pretty incredible to me considering the long build-up the show had. Check out my review here.
As it stands, there's no big releases of September I'll definitely be seeing in theaters either, though there's plenty of interesting releases to keep an eye on, and hopefully at least watch at home. What looks good to y'all this month? I hope you all had a fantastic summer!
It
Sept 8th; R
For some reason I feel like this movie is capitalizing on the success of Stranger Things. Maybe because Finn Wolfhard is in it, maybe because it really does have that flavor. Of course, IT existed first. So I always say I'm not a horror movie person, but whenever something like this comes along I find myself interested. This isn't your average cheap scary movie, but the scarier something is the more "worth it" it needs to be. And this looks like the absolute most terrifying thing I've ever had even an inclining to watch! If I had to venture a guess about the quality right now I'd say it's going to be high -- really high. But it also look pretty freaking scary, so. It stars the talented Jaeden Lieberher, and Bill Skarsgard of the Skarsgard acting family as Pennywise.
Anti Matter
Sept 8th; NR
This one claims to be a scifi noir which immediately grabbed my attention, but the trailer is just... odd. It does have a strong mystery element to it, and there's definitely scifi too, but the style could be more appealing. The visual style seems to lean more scifi than noir, which is all too often the case I find, but it does have style at least, so that's already ahead of the curve. Anyway this is the sort of movie you watch because of the genre and premise regardless of what the trailer looks like. This is the sort of thing I'd love to watch at home out of pure curiosity if I ever see it streaming, with not a whole lot of expectation, either low or high.
The Limehouse Golem
Sept 8th(limited); NR
British period mystery yes please. A "before Jack the Ripper" tale in the 1800s, with Bill Nighy as the detective, with Olivia Cooke, Douglas Booth, and ever-fantastic Eddie Marsan who supports the heck out of everything he supports. This looks like a classic British mystery in a borderline typical way, but even if it is, I think I'd prefer it that way, especially if it's done well. Will keep an eye out!
Rebel in the Rye
Sept 15th; PG-13
Nicholas Hoult looks pretty strange with brown eyes. This is a biopic about J.D. Salinger, who wrote The Catcher in the Rye, and I haven't read The Catcher in the Rye. It looks like the sort of thing I'd enjoy as a writer, but based on the few reviews around, it's not worth much. A case of wasted potential, it appears. At any rate, I wouldn't let myself watch it before reading the guy's book, but it does have Kevin Spacey and Sarah Paulson besides Hoult, and looks like a good drama on the surface.
Mother!
Sept 15th; NR
Well this one's already been making waves ever since the trailer first dropped, but it's also one of those cases where I'm not in on the joke. Even if it turned out appropriate enough that I want to bother with it, which is unlikely, I still have no obsession with Darren Aronofsky, having never seen a single movie of his, and my like of Jennifer Lawrence is dwindling at best. It's a psychological thriller, which produces idle curiosity over what the twist is, but otherwise doesn't seem to promise anything worthwhile beyond an extremely memorable style. I expect the day I watch this is the day I had nothing better to do. Javier Bardem co-stars.
American Assassin
Sept 15th(limited); R
So I guess Dylan O'Brien wants to be an action star. Good -- because he's really good at it. The energy he brings to his action is extremely unique and entertaining. I'm not a fangirl, but I'd watch this guy play in action flicks all day long. And that's the main appeal of this film, though it does have Michael Keaton in it, and what looks like a fun-while-being-super-serious kind of plot.
Brad's Status
Sept 15th(limited); R
Ben Stiller's back. For some reason I like Ben Stiller, especially when he's in dramedies and indies. The appeal of this one really is just him and the rest of the cast. Austin Abrams of Paper Towns is his son, Jenna Fischer is his wife, and Michael Sheen, Luke Wilson and Jemaine Clement are his more "successful" friends. Sounds nice. Sounds like I don't even care what the plot is.
Kingsman: The Golden Circle
Sept 22nd; R
I gave a favorable review to the first one, but the last half bothered me. I re-watched it recently and now firmly believe that while stylish, and charming on the surface, it isn't nearly as smart as it thinks it is, and has little going on under the surface. That's not to say this one won't be good, or even that I won't see it. I'm not sure. It's just to say that I'm not head-over-heels, and won't be holding out much hope that this sequel will be any improvement. The success of the first implies this will be more of the same, which is hardly ever an improvement, and almost always a relative let-down. But Taron Egerton is still here and being charming so it can only sink so far. Mark Strong is back too. Colin Firth returning is far-fetched, but I suppose that's the whole point!
The Lego Ninjago Movie
Sept 22nd; PG
I'd be very surprised if this ends up being even in the same ballpark of quality as The Lego Movie or even The Lego Batman Movie, but it exists, so hey, you might as well watch it! That's maybe not the best thing to say. It is important that movies try to have good quality after all, and this one is probably mostly just banking on the success of the previously mentioned, but the trailer does provide a few giggles, so that's not nothing. Voice talents of Dave Franco, Justin Theroux, and Jackie Chan will be heard.
American Made
Sept 29th; R
This is the sort of movie that looks good, but I just don't care. Tom Cruise is making up for The Mummy apparently; the story is light and full of comedy but is also based on a true story so that different and fun; and it's got a unique style to it, maybe coming from the era. It looks like a worthwhile watch, but is the sort of thing I wouldn't ever see unless it was convenient. In short, it looks great, and forgettable. Dohmnall Gleeson is also in it though.
Realive
Sept 29th; NR
Pronounced "re-alive" not "real-ive" I assume. Overlooking the kinda bad title, this is an interesting scifi movie to me, because it takes an idea that is very popular -- cryogenically freezing yourself when you're dying until the science is invented to save you -- and applies it in the most realistic way I've ever seen in a movie premise. Like, why has no one thought of making a movie from this perspective before? From the trailer it looks like it's told from a realistic perspective, though who knows how it plays out. Tom Hughes stars, and the movie promises a bit of romance as well. Gotta watch those scifi movies!
Showing posts with label Jennifer Lawrence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jennifer Lawrence. Show all posts
Friday, September 1, 2017
Thursday, August 3, 2017
Passengers
Some spoilers.
Thirty years into a hundred and twenty-year voyage into deep space, a cryogenic pod malfunction wakes up Chris Pratt to the biggest bummer of his entire life: he's gonna have to spend the rest of his life alone. Starving for company, he wakes up Jennifer Lawrence to join him.
For such a straightforward movie, my thoughts on it are annoyingly complicated. I wish I could just say, "It's pretty, its characters are pretty, there's science fiction, there's romance, it's not great, but it's decent." That would be true enough, but not the full truth. The full truth is that this movie bugged me creatively and caused me to think about what I would have wanted to be different, which opened up a whole lot of possibilities -- potential alternate timelines if you will -- against which to judge the version we got stuck with.
It is pretty though. Oh boy. I can't even say that and leave it alone, because I think the movie's dedication to being beautiful actually hindered its storytelling. It's pristine, and when things go wrong, it's still pristine, just in red and black, instead of blue and white, and with a bit of glossy sweat. If it had committed, and stuck its hands in the mud, it might have pulled out something valuable.
I wanted to see Pratt's character be darker -- like as dark as you can go while still clinging to a sliver of sympathy. As dark as only scifi can support so eloquently. But he's Chris Pratt, so no; he has to be a good guy who makes an extremely dark mistake. What if he didn't see waking Jen up as a mistake until near the end? That would have been dark, and honestly more believable, but Pratt is so much more enjoyable as a good guy. Also, he does some fine acting in this movie. Very fine. Like, Jen does her exploding-anger-mental-breakdown-serious-acting and I was still more impressed with Pratt and his subtlety.
I just couldn't buy that good-guy-Chris-Pratt would ever fall so low as to actually wake someone else up. He's hyper aware of how terrible a thing it is, and even immediately seems to regret his actions. The movie's inability to commit to its premise was irritating. I'd like to see a version play out where he doesn't hide that he woke her up, so the anger can be immediate, and then he can spend the rest of the movie returning to sanity and understanding his error, while Jen slowly falls in love.
Or, as my family and I were discussing during the movie, there could be a horror twist where he goes completely crazy, and has woken up several people before Jen. They all get angry with him so he kills them. Jen finds out, and has to fight for her life. That, in all honesty, seems like the least contrived direction this movie could have taken -- the honest progression of a character who is so desperately alone that they ruin another person's life to help themselves. I would hate to see Chris Pratt do horror-villain, but at the same time, his innate niceness and charm would make the twist all the more disturbing.
As it is, the plotting is as straightforward as they come, and incredibly, hopelessly predictable, in spite of the forced direction it takes. If only they had hidden something from us. I saw a video suggesting that the film begin with Lawrence waking up, and filling in Pratt's character slowly. That would have been tremendously better. Or even if we aren't told that he woke her up -- if were allowed to believe maybe it was an incredible coincidence; be suspicious of him; any kind of intrigue or mystery at all!
There is mystery involving why the original malfunction happened, and that's the most intriguing aspect of the movie. Until the mystery is solved of course, (by deus ex machina Laurence Fishburne) and then it becomes the film's most trite aspect. But since this movie is a character piece, it needs more character intrigue than plot intrigue. It desperately needed character intrigue, and was sadly, sadly lacking. You would think there would be a lot, considering the fantastic situation these characters are put in, but the bulk of the meager character interest is due to performances that are better than their material.
It's unfortunate. A great number of things could have been done to change this movie into something, if not great, at least better. As it is, it isn't terrible. It has two fine leads, and a memorable premise -- the things that attracted me in the first place. It's visually unique, and should get credit for being an original story in this age of remakes. It has plenty of small flaws, but nothing huge or glaring.
If you can turn off your mind, suspend your disbelief, and be ready for a disproportionate amount of romance, you might get something out of Passengers. And if that something is being entertained for two hours by Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence roaming through a pretty scifi world... well, it could be better, sure, but it certainly could be worse.
Thirty years into a hundred and twenty-year voyage into deep space, a cryogenic pod malfunction wakes up Chris Pratt to the biggest bummer of his entire life: he's gonna have to spend the rest of his life alone. Starving for company, he wakes up Jennifer Lawrence to join him.
 |
| Romance blossoms! Oh but wait -- that was actually a super mean thing to do... |
For such a straightforward movie, my thoughts on it are annoyingly complicated. I wish I could just say, "It's pretty, its characters are pretty, there's science fiction, there's romance, it's not great, but it's decent." That would be true enough, but not the full truth. The full truth is that this movie bugged me creatively and caused me to think about what I would have wanted to be different, which opened up a whole lot of possibilities -- potential alternate timelines if you will -- against which to judge the version we got stuck with.
It is pretty though. Oh boy. I can't even say that and leave it alone, because I think the movie's dedication to being beautiful actually hindered its storytelling. It's pristine, and when things go wrong, it's still pristine, just in red and black, instead of blue and white, and with a bit of glossy sweat. If it had committed, and stuck its hands in the mud, it might have pulled out something valuable.
 |
| See??? |
I wanted to see Pratt's character be darker -- like as dark as you can go while still clinging to a sliver of sympathy. As dark as only scifi can support so eloquently. But he's Chris Pratt, so no; he has to be a good guy who makes an extremely dark mistake. What if he didn't see waking Jen up as a mistake until near the end? That would have been dark, and honestly more believable, but Pratt is so much more enjoyable as a good guy. Also, he does some fine acting in this movie. Very fine. Like, Jen does her exploding-anger-mental-breakdown-serious-acting and I was still more impressed with Pratt and his subtlety.
I just couldn't buy that good-guy-Chris-Pratt would ever fall so low as to actually wake someone else up. He's hyper aware of how terrible a thing it is, and even immediately seems to regret his actions. The movie's inability to commit to its premise was irritating. I'd like to see a version play out where he doesn't hide that he woke her up, so the anger can be immediate, and then he can spend the rest of the movie returning to sanity and understanding his error, while Jen slowly falls in love.
 |
| Check out how creepy he looks here. |
Or, as my family and I were discussing during the movie, there could be a horror twist where he goes completely crazy, and has woken up several people before Jen. They all get angry with him so he kills them. Jen finds out, and has to fight for her life. That, in all honesty, seems like the least contrived direction this movie could have taken -- the honest progression of a character who is so desperately alone that they ruin another person's life to help themselves. I would hate to see Chris Pratt do horror-villain, but at the same time, his innate niceness and charm would make the twist all the more disturbing.
As it is, the plotting is as straightforward as they come, and incredibly, hopelessly predictable, in spite of the forced direction it takes. If only they had hidden something from us. I saw a video suggesting that the film begin with Lawrence waking up, and filling in Pratt's character slowly. That would have been tremendously better. Or even if we aren't told that he woke her up -- if were allowed to believe maybe it was an incredible coincidence; be suspicious of him; any kind of intrigue or mystery at all!
 |
| This movie focused way too much on looking good. (Note Michael Sheen in the background. He's the android bartender. The reveal of him being an android was spoiled by the trailer. My fault for watching it, I suppose.) |
There is mystery involving why the original malfunction happened, and that's the most intriguing aspect of the movie. Until the mystery is solved of course, (by deus ex machina Laurence Fishburne) and then it becomes the film's most trite aspect. But since this movie is a character piece, it needs more character intrigue than plot intrigue. It desperately needed character intrigue, and was sadly, sadly lacking. You would think there would be a lot, considering the fantastic situation these characters are put in, but the bulk of the meager character interest is due to performances that are better than their material.
It's unfortunate. A great number of things could have been done to change this movie into something, if not great, at least better. As it is, it isn't terrible. It has two fine leads, and a memorable premise -- the things that attracted me in the first place. It's visually unique, and should get credit for being an original story in this age of remakes. It has plenty of small flaws, but nothing huge or glaring.
 |
| Probably works best if you're looking for a romance rather than a scifi. |
If you can turn off your mind, suspend your disbelief, and be ready for a disproportionate amount of romance, you might get something out of Passengers. And if that something is being entertained for two hours by Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence roaming through a pretty scifi world... well, it could be better, sure, but it certainly could be worse.
Thursday, December 1, 2016
Upcoming Movie Roundup - December
In November I went to see Doctor Strange, and it was everything I didn't know how to hope it would be! A wonderful surprise, and a fun and original origin film from Marvel. And then in an unexpected turn of events, I also went to see Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them with some friends. And I thoroughly enjoyed it, in spite of a handful of less-than-great aspects. I said in November that I didn't want to invest in a new long series, but I'm afraid I might have done accidentally.
And now -- December. The end of 2016! So tell me, what is your favorite film of the year so far? And are there any movies releasing in December that you think might displace it?
Here's what's interesting me...
La La Land
Dec 8th; PG-13
Honestly, all I need to know concerning this film is that it's from Damien Chazelle, the writer and director of Whiplash. And, equally as honestly, if I didn't know it was from him, and watched this trailer, then THAT would be all I need to know. So, at this point, I already know too much. I even know that it stars Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone. I have a lot of questions, like is it a legit musical, or is the "musical" moments just fantasy? Or daydreams? Cause you know -- La La Land. And there's some weird stuff going on in the trailer, but I kinda want it all to be real. But anyway, that doesn't really effect that fact that I want to see this movie! It looks so beautiful, in every sense of the word. I seriously doubt this could be anything but excellent.
Rogue One: A Star Wars Story
Dec 15th; PG-13
It's hard to put my finger on what exactly excites me about this movie. First, it's Star Wars, so I have to see it. There's no way I won't. But also, it's a smaller scale story. It's not about the Jedi, with their chosen ones and prophesies and such, it's just average people caught up in the rebellion. It's a neat opportunity to be different. Like, they go undercover in the Death Star, so is it going to be more of a spy film? A Mission: Impossible kind of thing? And then there's the cast. I've always liked Felicity Jones, so I'm ready to love her character, and I can already feel a little crush developing on Diego Luna's character, just from the trailer. (I just realized I've seen him before, in Elysium! He was the dude with the pigtails. No wonder I like him.) There's also Mads Mikkelsen, and Forest Whitaker, and Alan Tudyk voicing the robot! And then, there's the look of it. I mean, good grief, you could play the trailer, pause it anywhere randomly, have it printed and it'd be the most gorgeous piece of art. If the entire movie looks like that, I might be so distracted that I don't even notice the story. And that seems like that is the only thing that's up in the air right now. But seriously, if Episode 7 could be so fantastic just by copying Episode 4's plot, there's not much to be worried about. All they have to do is come up with something original that fits inside the preexisting narrative, and I'm there. Well, I'm there anyway, but there you go.
Assassin's Creed
Dec 20th; PG-13
NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION! Ahem. So, I'm not a big video game person, and the only reason I even knew about this movie is because everyone else does. My brother has lots to say on the subject of this movie, but for me, it boils down to this: It's an action movie, so is the story there, and, are the visuals there? From the trailer the story is ambiguous. That could be a good thing, if they're just trying to not reveal too much, or it could simply mean the story is not there. Same thing with the visuals. It seems to promise good things, but if what we see here is the very best they have, the movie won't be able to stand on visuals alone. Personally, I'd really like it to end up on the positive side. I like Michael Fassbender, he can handle action well, and the sci-fi side of it is interesting to me. But honestly, it'd be the bigger surprise if it wound up being truly good.
Passengers
Dec 20th; PG-13
From the moment I saw that Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence were going to star in a space sci-fi movie together I was on board. And, well, I still am, but my expectations have slowly been diminishing since the original announcement. Like, I'm all for a little romance with my sci-fi, but this is more "a little sci-fi with the romance." The only news I've seen concerning the film is about the sex scene. Not a great sign, even if it is PG-13. And something I'd opt to cut out completely -- I like the actors too much. Maybe it'll surprise me and wind up being a great sci-fi story as well after all, but I'm not confident. The premise is very neat, and the look of it is great -- just my kind of thing. I love how as the trailer goes on they slowly morph from clean and pristine to panicked and dirty. It one of those times where I'll just have to wait and see, but man, I'm really hoping here.
Sing
Dec 20th; PG
This animated movie as about a singing competition with animals, and is stuffed full of big names. Too full, I think. I saw a couple different trailers for this, and the one I have here made me pretty interested to see the movie, but the other one tried very hard to cancel that out. The first trailer gave the impression that the movie was focusing mainly on one story -- that of the kid gorilla voiced by Taron Egerton -- and letting all the other characters be more in the background. But it's clear now that all the characters will be basically equal. It's a kid's version of Love Actually with animals! So now I bet that a lot less than average effort is going to be put into each story. It's a kid's movie, so for them that hardly matters, but for me the only appeal left is hearing the actors sing. And we don't even get to see them sing.
Silence
Dec 22nd; R
The latest from Martin Scorsese is based on a novel, and about two missionaries -- Andrew Garfield and Adam Driver -- who go dangerously and illegally into Japan in search of one of their own, Liam Neeson. It's getting a bit of Oscar talk, and looks serious and intense but also highly artistic, and I just hope that it isn't only existing to be Oscar bait, but actually existing to tell its story. It's definitely a different story that we haven't seen before, and I'd love to see it find success if it's as good as it looks even without the help of the Academy.
A Monster Calls
Dec 22nd; PG-13
A fantasy coming of age story that has Felicity Jones, Toby Kebbell, Liam Neeson and Sigourney Weaver surrounding the newcomer in the lead. From the trailer, this doesn't look super interesting to me, though it does look neat and uniquely dark for a movie where the lead is twelve years old. The critics seem to think it's worth our time, so I'll definitely be keeping an eye on it.
Paterson
Dec 27th; R
Just this trailer leaves me feeling so relaxed and happy. I love the tone. And it's got Adam Driver in it, and that's pretty much all I need to know! Definitely need to see this one. It's limited release only leaves the question of "when?"
And now -- December. The end of 2016! So tell me, what is your favorite film of the year so far? And are there any movies releasing in December that you think might displace it?
Here's what's interesting me...
La La Land
Dec 8th; PG-13
Honestly, all I need to know concerning this film is that it's from Damien Chazelle, the writer and director of Whiplash. And, equally as honestly, if I didn't know it was from him, and watched this trailer, then THAT would be all I need to know. So, at this point, I already know too much. I even know that it stars Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone. I have a lot of questions, like is it a legit musical, or is the "musical" moments just fantasy? Or daydreams? Cause you know -- La La Land. And there's some weird stuff going on in the trailer, but I kinda want it all to be real. But anyway, that doesn't really effect that fact that I want to see this movie! It looks so beautiful, in every sense of the word. I seriously doubt this could be anything but excellent.
Rogue One: A Star Wars Story
Dec 15th; PG-13
It's hard to put my finger on what exactly excites me about this movie. First, it's Star Wars, so I have to see it. There's no way I won't. But also, it's a smaller scale story. It's not about the Jedi, with their chosen ones and prophesies and such, it's just average people caught up in the rebellion. It's a neat opportunity to be different. Like, they go undercover in the Death Star, so is it going to be more of a spy film? A Mission: Impossible kind of thing? And then there's the cast. I've always liked Felicity Jones, so I'm ready to love her character, and I can already feel a little crush developing on Diego Luna's character, just from the trailer. (I just realized I've seen him before, in Elysium! He was the dude with the pigtails. No wonder I like him.) There's also Mads Mikkelsen, and Forest Whitaker, and Alan Tudyk voicing the robot! And then, there's the look of it. I mean, good grief, you could play the trailer, pause it anywhere randomly, have it printed and it'd be the most gorgeous piece of art. If the entire movie looks like that, I might be so distracted that I don't even notice the story. And that seems like that is the only thing that's up in the air right now. But seriously, if Episode 7 could be so fantastic just by copying Episode 4's plot, there's not much to be worried about. All they have to do is come up with something original that fits inside the preexisting narrative, and I'm there. Well, I'm there anyway, but there you go.
Assassin's Creed
Dec 20th; PG-13
NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION! Ahem. So, I'm not a big video game person, and the only reason I even knew about this movie is because everyone else does. My brother has lots to say on the subject of this movie, but for me, it boils down to this: It's an action movie, so is the story there, and, are the visuals there? From the trailer the story is ambiguous. That could be a good thing, if they're just trying to not reveal too much, or it could simply mean the story is not there. Same thing with the visuals. It seems to promise good things, but if what we see here is the very best they have, the movie won't be able to stand on visuals alone. Personally, I'd really like it to end up on the positive side. I like Michael Fassbender, he can handle action well, and the sci-fi side of it is interesting to me. But honestly, it'd be the bigger surprise if it wound up being truly good.
Passengers
Dec 20th; PG-13
From the moment I saw that Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence were going to star in a space sci-fi movie together I was on board. And, well, I still am, but my expectations have slowly been diminishing since the original announcement. Like, I'm all for a little romance with my sci-fi, but this is more "a little sci-fi with the romance." The only news I've seen concerning the film is about the sex scene. Not a great sign, even if it is PG-13. And something I'd opt to cut out completely -- I like the actors too much. Maybe it'll surprise me and wind up being a great sci-fi story as well after all, but I'm not confident. The premise is very neat, and the look of it is great -- just my kind of thing. I love how as the trailer goes on they slowly morph from clean and pristine to panicked and dirty. It one of those times where I'll just have to wait and see, but man, I'm really hoping here.
Sing
Dec 20th; PG
This animated movie as about a singing competition with animals, and is stuffed full of big names. Too full, I think. I saw a couple different trailers for this, and the one I have here made me pretty interested to see the movie, but the other one tried very hard to cancel that out. The first trailer gave the impression that the movie was focusing mainly on one story -- that of the kid gorilla voiced by Taron Egerton -- and letting all the other characters be more in the background. But it's clear now that all the characters will be basically equal. It's a kid's version of Love Actually with animals! So now I bet that a lot less than average effort is going to be put into each story. It's a kid's movie, so for them that hardly matters, but for me the only appeal left is hearing the actors sing. And we don't even get to see them sing.
Silence
Dec 22nd; R
The latest from Martin Scorsese is based on a novel, and about two missionaries -- Andrew Garfield and Adam Driver -- who go dangerously and illegally into Japan in search of one of their own, Liam Neeson. It's getting a bit of Oscar talk, and looks serious and intense but also highly artistic, and I just hope that it isn't only existing to be Oscar bait, but actually existing to tell its story. It's definitely a different story that we haven't seen before, and I'd love to see it find success if it's as good as it looks even without the help of the Academy.
A Monster Calls
Dec 22nd; PG-13
A fantasy coming of age story that has Felicity Jones, Toby Kebbell, Liam Neeson and Sigourney Weaver surrounding the newcomer in the lead. From the trailer, this doesn't look super interesting to me, though it does look neat and uniquely dark for a movie where the lead is twelve years old. The critics seem to think it's worth our time, so I'll definitely be keeping an eye on it.
Paterson
Dec 27th; R
Just this trailer leaves me feeling so relaxed and happy. I love the tone. And it's got Adam Driver in it, and that's pretty much all I need to know! Definitely need to see this one. It's limited release only leaves the question of "when?"
Saturday, October 15, 2016
X-Men: Apocalypse
Some spoilers... though there's not much to spoil.
I've finally had to admit to myself that I'm just not a fan of the rebooted X-Men franchise. It seems crazy. How could I not like a superhero franchise? That has so many favorite actors in it no less? I look at that cast of the new X-Men films -- particularly this one -- and think there's no way I could possibly not love the movie they all inhabit. Not to mention they all play such cool characters. Yet, here I am again, underwhelmed after an X-Men movie -- and this one more so than ever.
This time Oscar Isaac steps up to the plate as the villain: Apocalypse, an ancient, powerful being -- the original mutant, who had been slumbering for the past couple thousand years, but has now been awakened. (Side point: was it actually Rose Byrne's fault he woke up? Cause those men were doing the chanting, but it seemed like to me it only worked because she forgot to close the door and sunlight got in. Like, they've been going down there and chanting daily for hundreds of years, and this is the first time someone accidentally left the door open? Anyway...) Apocalypse doesn't exactly like how earth has changed since he ruled it and means to do some spring cleansing before he takes office.
The most disappointing aspect of this film might actually be that Oscar Isaac is unrecognizable in his role. And I get that in his normal state he doesn't exactly exude the kind of power and menace a character called Apocalypse would require, but seriously, covering his face in prosthetics and digitally changing his voice was not the answer. Cast someone else. Or just let him act. I spent the whole movie trying to recognize him (knowing that it was him!) and it only came through in a brief glimmer one time -- in his voice. He didn't even get to do any acting; he just delivered a bunch of speeches in a deep, digitally altered dramatic voice. Anyone could have done it! The final blow was of course that he didn't have the superpower to grow into a giant like the trailer implied. Turns out the most powerful mutant ever needs others to do everything for him, and can't take on more than one person at a time in a fight.
Out of all three of the rebooted X-Men films, this one is oddly the least epic and on the smallest scale. That really surprised me. It's called Apocalypse; shouldn't the scale be, I don't know, apocalyptic? The final battle took place within about a square block -- making the Avengers and Superman jealous I'm sure -- and was so sadly static. It bothers me when superheroes destroy entire cities carelessly, but at least other films do a lot of moving around to produce the destruction. Here, we have the worst of both worlds, with Erik just sitting there and whoom -- everything's destroyed. Then they just kick back and have a battle that would have done very little damage otherwise.
That's the brunt of my complaining. Then there's a few things I'm more neutral to, and a few things I liked. On the neutral front come Charles and Erik. They're the main characters, but they never have interested me much as such. I like Michael Fassbender and I like what was done with the character of Charles under James McAvoy in this film, but it really seems like they're only the main characters because Hugh Jackman only gets a cameo. X-Men films are best when they're led by Wolverine, and that's a fact. So the movie spends a lot of time focusing on Charles and Erik, doing the same things they've always done, and while it's not exactly bad, (except for that super unlucky accident that started Erik up on his "villain or no?" arc yet again -- that earned a hearty "come on!" from me) it's not exactly compelling to me either.
What I did find compelling was, amazingly, one of the things I was most looking forward to. That is, Tye Sheridan playing Scott/Cyclops and Kodi Smit-McPhee playing Kurt/Nightcrawler. I was looking forward to them because they're talented actors and since I've already enjoyed the older versions of the characters, I thought it would be neat to see them take the parts. I underestimated how good this aspect would actually be. Firstly, Tye Sheridan was perfect casting for Scott. I actually saw James Marsden in him, like he could actually grow up into him. Characterization could have used so much more, but at least that's a testament to how much potential he had.
And Kurt was even better. He got a small arc, but it was complete and interesting. And seriously, the kid is so charming. He was by far the funniest character (even though Quicksilver was there) and had that adorable naivete and a tragic but unexploited backstory. Right now I just wish this had been like a teen comedy where Scott, Kurt, Jean, and friends do typical high school things with a super-powered twist and then in the end have to go save the day like they do (in the best part of the movie I might add) and that's it. I would watch the heck out of that movie!
I should mention while I'm on the subject that Sophie Turner as Jean Grey is very good too. I've never felt the biggest connection with the character, but this version of her is sympathetic and as good as ever. Also Evan Peters as Quicksilver; the problem of his being too powerful to participate in the climax they cut off at the pass, but then they had to backtrack a little, because they didn't want him to actually tell Erik he's his son? Whatever. I still like the characterization, but his big scene felt very much like "Quicksilver Saves the Day: The Sequel." It was bigger, and longer, but by no means better.
It's a strange day when there's a movie starring Jennifer Lawrence and Nicholas Hoult and I spend all my time talking about everyone else, but as cool as these two are, they spend this movie treading water so there's not much to say. It's also pretty sad that the politics of the X-Men movies is usually what annoys me, yet this one had next to none and I didn't like the film any better. My overall experience was just enjoying the characters as they came in small doses -- particularly the Scott/Jean/Kurt trio -- being mildly bored in between, and then being underwhelmed by the smallness of the ending. There wasn't a whole lot to hate, and neither was there a whole lot to love.
Since I'm big on characters, the film manages to tip to the positive side. The plot in uninspired, and a lot of characters were only there because they could be, or because it is expected, but there was enough that was worthwhile to bring the rest of the film along with it. So I guess I'm not an X-Men fan, but right now, that's working out for me. I can still enjoy what I can out of the films, but I'm not invested enough to care when there's failings. The X-Men -- the characters and the talent that portrays them -- deserve better films than ones like this, but until they get them, I'll be taking them as I can for what they are.
 |
| "What does this button do?" "That makes the movie more interesting. Never push that button Hank." |
This time Oscar Isaac steps up to the plate as the villain: Apocalypse, an ancient, powerful being -- the original mutant, who had been slumbering for the past couple thousand years, but has now been awakened. (Side point: was it actually Rose Byrne's fault he woke up? Cause those men were doing the chanting, but it seemed like to me it only worked because she forgot to close the door and sunlight got in. Like, they've been going down there and chanting daily for hundreds of years, and this is the first time someone accidentally left the door open? Anyway...) Apocalypse doesn't exactly like how earth has changed since he ruled it and means to do some spring cleansing before he takes office.
 |
| The only thing he really has is good persuasive skills, to convince people to work for him. |
Out of all three of the rebooted X-Men films, this one is oddly the least epic and on the smallest scale. That really surprised me. It's called Apocalypse; shouldn't the scale be, I don't know, apocalyptic? The final battle took place within about a square block -- making the Avengers and Superman jealous I'm sure -- and was so sadly static. It bothers me when superheroes destroy entire cities carelessly, but at least other films do a lot of moving around to produce the destruction. Here, we have the worst of both worlds, with Erik just sitting there and whoom -- everything's destroyed. Then they just kick back and have a battle that would have done very little damage otherwise.
That's the brunt of my complaining. Then there's a few things I'm more neutral to, and a few things I liked. On the neutral front come Charles and Erik. They're the main characters, but they never have interested me much as such. I like Michael Fassbender and I like what was done with the character of Charles under James McAvoy in this film, but it really seems like they're only the main characters because Hugh Jackman only gets a cameo. X-Men films are best when they're led by Wolverine, and that's a fact. So the movie spends a lot of time focusing on Charles and Erik, doing the same things they've always done, and while it's not exactly bad, (except for that super unlucky accident that started Erik up on his "villain or no?" arc yet again -- that earned a hearty "come on!" from me) it's not exactly compelling to me either.
 |
| You know, now that the timeline has been changed, you don't need to contrive reasons for Erik to be a bad guy... |
What I did find compelling was, amazingly, one of the things I was most looking forward to. That is, Tye Sheridan playing Scott/Cyclops and Kodi Smit-McPhee playing Kurt/Nightcrawler. I was looking forward to them because they're talented actors and since I've already enjoyed the older versions of the characters, I thought it would be neat to see them take the parts. I underestimated how good this aspect would actually be. Firstly, Tye Sheridan was perfect casting for Scott. I actually saw James Marsden in him, like he could actually grow up into him. Characterization could have used so much more, but at least that's a testament to how much potential he had.
And Kurt was even better. He got a small arc, but it was complete and interesting. And seriously, the kid is so charming. He was by far the funniest character (even though Quicksilver was there) and had that adorable naivete and a tragic but unexploited backstory. Right now I just wish this had been like a teen comedy where Scott, Kurt, Jean, and friends do typical high school things with a super-powered twist and then in the end have to go save the day like they do (in the best part of the movie I might add) and that's it. I would watch the heck out of that movie!
 |
| The trio. Why couldn't they be the movie's main characters? |
I should mention while I'm on the subject that Sophie Turner as Jean Grey is very good too. I've never felt the biggest connection with the character, but this version of her is sympathetic and as good as ever. Also Evan Peters as Quicksilver; the problem of his being too powerful to participate in the climax they cut off at the pass, but then they had to backtrack a little, because they didn't want him to actually tell Erik he's his son? Whatever. I still like the characterization, but his big scene felt very much like "Quicksilver Saves the Day: The Sequel." It was bigger, and longer, but by no means better.
It's a strange day when there's a movie starring Jennifer Lawrence and Nicholas Hoult and I spend all my time talking about everyone else, but as cool as these two are, they spend this movie treading water so there's not much to say. It's also pretty sad that the politics of the X-Men movies is usually what annoys me, yet this one had next to none and I didn't like the film any better. My overall experience was just enjoying the characters as they came in small doses -- particularly the Scott/Jean/Kurt trio -- being mildly bored in between, and then being underwhelmed by the smallness of the ending. There wasn't a whole lot to hate, and neither was there a whole lot to love.
 |
| Quicksilver attempts to save everyone from the movie's wreckage. It's unclear whether he is successful. |
Since I'm big on characters, the film manages to tip to the positive side. The plot in uninspired, and a lot of characters were only there because they could be, or because it is expected, but there was enough that was worthwhile to bring the rest of the film along with it. So I guess I'm not an X-Men fan, but right now, that's working out for me. I can still enjoy what I can out of the films, but I'm not invested enough to care when there's failings. The X-Men -- the characters and the talent that portrays them -- deserve better films than ones like this, but until they get them, I'll be taking them as I can for what they are.
Sunday, May 1, 2016
Upcoming Movie Roundup - May
So I got a big surprise in April when I went to see Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice because I was curious and my brother wanted to see it, and it turned out to be not the most terrible movie ever. I didn't actually hate it but managed to mostly enjoy it and that quite impressed me. But predictably no April movies were able to tempt me to see them. I did think about how much I wanted to see 10 Cloverfield Lane again quite a lot. And I looked for Midnight Special, but it isn't playing in my theater. So now we have come upon it; it's May, and it's time for War. Civil War.
What releases are you looking forward to this month? And are you Team Cap or Team Iron Man?
Captain America: Civil War
May 6th; PG-13
Obviously Captain America is the most hype movie this month... and possibly even this year, but we'll see. I'm not super anxious and excited to see it at this moment because based on what I've heard over the past few months, it's going to be an intense and hard-hitting movie. I feel like it's going to take a lot, and hoping that it gives enough to balance it out. Also, having seen Batman v Superman and Daredevil season 2, I've already had enough of the heroes fighting. So I'm hoping this movie can handle it better, but I'm also pretty confident that it will. Cap is basically the best ever, so I'm excited to see him lead another movie, and hoping the supporting cast won't crowd him too much, but at the same time the supporting cast and all the new characters we'll get to see is a huge part of the appeal. (I have one hyphenated word for you: Spider-Man.) Opening night tickets are already in my possession. All that's left now is to find time for a Winter Soldier re-watch. Go Team Cap!
High-Rise
May 13th (limited); R
This one's rating means that I won't watch it until I can watch it cut, but everything else about it makes me excited for when ever that day will be. This looks like my kind of movie. It's a sci-fi, and looks like an original, cerebral, and dark one too. And that would be good enough for me, but it also has a cast I'm quite partial to, with Tom Hiddleston and Luke Evans, plus Jeremy Irons and Sienna Miller. It currently holds a medium high score on RT... and has my attention fully.
Last Days in the Desert
May 13th (limited); PG-13
I don't really have much to say about this one but I thought it was worth mentioning. I like Ewan McGregor a lot, and Tye Sheridan also has a role, and it's got some good reviews, but it also looks like the kind of movie that could go very weird and theologically wonky. So I'm more curious to see what other people think than I am so see it for myself.
Love & Friendship
May 13th (limited); PG
The new Jane Austen adaptation! A guaranteed success, right? Well, there is a tiny catch: the book, Lady Susan, isn't an average Austen novel. It was one of Austen's earliest works, short, and written in the form of letters. This probably poses a few adaptation challenges to get around, but at least since it's so short they probably won't have to cut much out! I've never read it, but from the trailer it looks like a bright, witty satirical and fun period drama, and it's current %100 on RT backs that up. So -- perhaps it is a guaranteed success!
The Curse of Sleeping Beauty
May 13th (limited); NR
This one caught my attention because I was just thinking the other day how neat it would be if someone did a Sleeping Beauty story with a twist, and that twist should be that she sleeps right into the modern day and is woken up there. This movie has that general idea, but also takes it to plenty more, stranger places... it looks like a bit of a horror flick. It doesn't really look like a very good movie either, like it may not be executed very well. But I thought it's existence was a fun coincidence, and I'd like to keep an eye on how it does.
X-Men: Apocalypse
May 27th; NR
I got tired of X-Men after the last film, but this one has still kindled a surprisingly strong interest in me. Maybe because of how many new characters are coming and looking very promising -- or rather, old characters coming back as kids and therefore being re-cast and revitalized. Maybe because of Oscar Isaac being Apocalypse. Or maybe because the title actually justifies the stakes and scope the movie has to have as an X-Men movie. All X-Men movies seem to deal with the end of the world, but this one deserves to. So maybe that why. Ha, who am I kidding -- it's definitely Oscar Isaac. And the other things as a secondary. I definitely want to see this one, but I don't know when I'll be able to -- it's coming out at an inconvenient time. So I'll see it when I can and until then try not to get my hopes up that it'll be any better than the last one. Equal will do.
What releases are you looking forward to this month? And are you Team Cap or Team Iron Man?
Captain America: Civil War
May 6th; PG-13
Obviously Captain America is the most hype movie this month... and possibly even this year, but we'll see. I'm not super anxious and excited to see it at this moment because based on what I've heard over the past few months, it's going to be an intense and hard-hitting movie. I feel like it's going to take a lot, and hoping that it gives enough to balance it out. Also, having seen Batman v Superman and Daredevil season 2, I've already had enough of the heroes fighting. So I'm hoping this movie can handle it better, but I'm also pretty confident that it will. Cap is basically the best ever, so I'm excited to see him lead another movie, and hoping the supporting cast won't crowd him too much, but at the same time the supporting cast and all the new characters we'll get to see is a huge part of the appeal. (I have one hyphenated word for you: Spider-Man.) Opening night tickets are already in my possession. All that's left now is to find time for a Winter Soldier re-watch. Go Team Cap!
High-Rise
May 13th (limited); R
This one's rating means that I won't watch it until I can watch it cut, but everything else about it makes me excited for when ever that day will be. This looks like my kind of movie. It's a sci-fi, and looks like an original, cerebral, and dark one too. And that would be good enough for me, but it also has a cast I'm quite partial to, with Tom Hiddleston and Luke Evans, plus Jeremy Irons and Sienna Miller. It currently holds a medium high score on RT... and has my attention fully.
Last Days in the Desert
May 13th (limited); PG-13
I don't really have much to say about this one but I thought it was worth mentioning. I like Ewan McGregor a lot, and Tye Sheridan also has a role, and it's got some good reviews, but it also looks like the kind of movie that could go very weird and theologically wonky. So I'm more curious to see what other people think than I am so see it for myself.
Love & Friendship
May 13th (limited); PG
The new Jane Austen adaptation! A guaranteed success, right? Well, there is a tiny catch: the book, Lady Susan, isn't an average Austen novel. It was one of Austen's earliest works, short, and written in the form of letters. This probably poses a few adaptation challenges to get around, but at least since it's so short they probably won't have to cut much out! I've never read it, but from the trailer it looks like a bright, witty satirical and fun period drama, and it's current %100 on RT backs that up. So -- perhaps it is a guaranteed success!
The Curse of Sleeping Beauty
May 13th (limited); NR
This one caught my attention because I was just thinking the other day how neat it would be if someone did a Sleeping Beauty story with a twist, and that twist should be that she sleeps right into the modern day and is woken up there. This movie has that general idea, but also takes it to plenty more, stranger places... it looks like a bit of a horror flick. It doesn't really look like a very good movie either, like it may not be executed very well. But I thought it's existence was a fun coincidence, and I'd like to keep an eye on how it does.
X-Men: Apocalypse
May 27th; NR
I got tired of X-Men after the last film, but this one has still kindled a surprisingly strong interest in me. Maybe because of how many new characters are coming and looking very promising -- or rather, old characters coming back as kids and therefore being re-cast and revitalized. Maybe because of Oscar Isaac being Apocalypse. Or maybe because the title actually justifies the stakes and scope the movie has to have as an X-Men movie. All X-Men movies seem to deal with the end of the world, but this one deserves to. So maybe that why. Ha, who am I kidding -- it's definitely Oscar Isaac. And the other things as a secondary. I definitely want to see this one, but I don't know when I'll be able to -- it's coming out at an inconvenient time. So I'll see it when I can and until then try not to get my hopes up that it'll be any better than the last one. Equal will do.
Tuesday, December 1, 2015
Upcoming Movie Roundup - December
From my November list I saw the one film I knew I would see, Mockingjay Part 2 (click here for my review) and we started The Man in the High Castle, which is great, but we're making slow progress. Still waiting on a chance to see Brooklyn and Man Up.
December, of course, has one new release that pretty much everyone knows about -- even the people who don't usually keep track of movie releases. It is undoubtedly the biggest hyped movie I have ever witnessed, and it's thrilling to be a part of it all. But, there are a few other December movies that are also worth a look:
MI-5 (Spooks: The Greater Good)
Dec 4th(limited); R
A spin-off movie of the British version of 24 (sorta), Spooks (or MI-5 in the US). I've never watched the TV show, and I wouldn't really expect this to be an actual great movie or anything, (reviews so far are expectedly middling) but the thing is, when it comes to action thrillers like this, even the bad ones are good to me. I'm definitely up for this one. I only wonder how much knowledge of the series is required. Or, maybe I should actually watch the series now...
In the Heart of the Sea
Dec 11th; PG-13
Every time I'm reminded of this, Ron Howard's latest epic, I think about it has basically everything I love to see in a movie. It looks beautiful, always a big bonus. It's an intriguing story, with lots of potential for genuine drama -- if the tone veers more to the serious, survival side, or to the action/adventure side, or lands anywhere in between it doesn't matter -- it'll all work well. Even though it's based on reality, it has that element of awe and wonder that comes from a fantasy. And it has a cast -- I mean it really has a cast. Chris Hemsworth, Cillian Murphy and Tom Holland top my "excited to see" list, but there's also Benjamin Walker, Ben Whishaw, and Brendan Gleeson. Plus it's a period drama. And set at sea. Even if one of these elements fail to be as great as they promise to be, there's many to back it up. I have very little doubt that this will fail to be a worthy film, and I may even have to drag my family to the theater to see it!
Don Verdean
Dec 11th(limited); PG-13
Ah-hahahahahaha-ooh... Well. It's a comedy from the writers of Napoleon Dynamite, and it stars Sam Rockwell and Jemaine Clement, which is three huge pluses right there, but the part where it pretty much is constantly poking fun at Christianity is much less appealing. No real Christians are like that in reality, and I have no problem with poking fun at the fake ones who actually are, but it always irks me a little to see Christianity portrayed so inaccurately -- even in fun -- because that really is the way some people view all Christians, and c'mon -- who would want to be associated with that? Reviews are mixed so far, but I love me some Sam Rockwell, so we'll just have to wait and see.
Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens
Dec 18th; PG-13
Gah! Do I really even need to say anything? The fact of the matter people, is, that even if every single other movie in December were complete trash, no one would care, or probably even notice -- because Star Wars. And if it's any good, that applies the January movies too. And it's gonna be good. Even if it isn't instantly as classic as the original trilogy it's still going to be worth all the hype. It looks so beyond epic from it's trailers. J.J. Abrams... epic amounts of sentimentality... fantastic cast. Even though I've never seen John Boyega or Daisy Ridley in anything before I already consider myself to be a fan of them, plus there's my personal favorite Oscar Isaac, and Domhnall Gleeson, Adam Driver, Andy Serkis and Lupita Nyong'o, and of course the original cast of Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher and Mark Hamill. One sad point for me is that I can't see it until Sunday at the earliest, (so I'll be dying on Thurs Fri and Sat) but that's the one damper amongst the piles of insanely exciting things about this hugely anticipated continuation of the Star Wars saga. All aboard the hype train! Next stop: a galaxy far far away! Woot wooot!
Joy
Dec 25th: PG-13
Jennifer Lawrence, Bradley Cooper and David O. Russell together yet again. Honestly I don't really need to know much more than that. What I do know is that the story is really four stories, each centering around a woman played by Lawrence, and, one of the stories, I believe, is true. It's a very different premise, and I hope is successful in making another good film for these three. What really sealed the deal for me was the PG-13 rating. I'm quite impressed. And if nothing else it'll be a great acting vehicle for Lawrence.
Point Break
Dec 25th; PG-13
I recently saw the original Keanu Reeves, Patrick Swayze film, and enjoyed it, so I don't see why I shouldn't do the same for this remake someday. This one looks much more thrilling as the daredevil aspect has been kicked up to match the modern day. Otherwise it doesn't seem to have much going for it, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if it's generally considered an unworthy remake by fans of the original.
The Revenant
Dec 25th; R
The chances that I'll ever see this are pretty slim. Even if it does turn out to be considered a fantastic film and even if it does finally allow Leo to win that Oscar, it just plain in unappealing to me. In spite of the cast, which, besides Leonardo DiCaprio, includes Tom Hardy, Domhnall Gleeson, Will Poulter, and Lukas Haas. It looks abrasively intense and serious, and that is just not interesting to me. I've sat through the trailer three times now in theaters and every time I do, I feel embarrassed for Leo. He's trying so hard! So, so hard. Poor Leo. It would be really sad if he didn't get it this time. I would laugh. With this one, I'm really interested in knowing what you guys think. Are you excited to see this movie, and if so, why? For Leo's performance, or the movie itself? And does anyone share my opinion that this movie is trying so hard it's actually embarrassing, or am I alone in that?
Weee, what an exciting month! How excited are you for Star Wars, and when are you planning to see it? And are there any other movies this month that have your attention?
December, of course, has one new release that pretty much everyone knows about -- even the people who don't usually keep track of movie releases. It is undoubtedly the biggest hyped movie I have ever witnessed, and it's thrilling to be a part of it all. But, there are a few other December movies that are also worth a look:
MI-5 (Spooks: The Greater Good)
Dec 4th(limited); R
A spin-off movie of the British version of 24 (sorta), Spooks (or MI-5 in the US). I've never watched the TV show, and I wouldn't really expect this to be an actual great movie or anything, (reviews so far are expectedly middling) but the thing is, when it comes to action thrillers like this, even the bad ones are good to me. I'm definitely up for this one. I only wonder how much knowledge of the series is required. Or, maybe I should actually watch the series now...
In the Heart of the Sea
Dec 11th; PG-13
Every time I'm reminded of this, Ron Howard's latest epic, I think about it has basically everything I love to see in a movie. It looks beautiful, always a big bonus. It's an intriguing story, with lots of potential for genuine drama -- if the tone veers more to the serious, survival side, or to the action/adventure side, or lands anywhere in between it doesn't matter -- it'll all work well. Even though it's based on reality, it has that element of awe and wonder that comes from a fantasy. And it has a cast -- I mean it really has a cast. Chris Hemsworth, Cillian Murphy and Tom Holland top my "excited to see" list, but there's also Benjamin Walker, Ben Whishaw, and Brendan Gleeson. Plus it's a period drama. And set at sea. Even if one of these elements fail to be as great as they promise to be, there's many to back it up. I have very little doubt that this will fail to be a worthy film, and I may even have to drag my family to the theater to see it!
Don Verdean
Dec 11th(limited); PG-13
Ah-hahahahahaha-ooh... Well. It's a comedy from the writers of Napoleon Dynamite, and it stars Sam Rockwell and Jemaine Clement, which is three huge pluses right there, but the part where it pretty much is constantly poking fun at Christianity is much less appealing. No real Christians are like that in reality, and I have no problem with poking fun at the fake ones who actually are, but it always irks me a little to see Christianity portrayed so inaccurately -- even in fun -- because that really is the way some people view all Christians, and c'mon -- who would want to be associated with that? Reviews are mixed so far, but I love me some Sam Rockwell, so we'll just have to wait and see.
Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens
Dec 18th; PG-13
Gah! Do I really even need to say anything? The fact of the matter people, is, that even if every single other movie in December were complete trash, no one would care, or probably even notice -- because Star Wars. And if it's any good, that applies the January movies too. And it's gonna be good. Even if it isn't instantly as classic as the original trilogy it's still going to be worth all the hype. It looks so beyond epic from it's trailers. J.J. Abrams... epic amounts of sentimentality... fantastic cast. Even though I've never seen John Boyega or Daisy Ridley in anything before I already consider myself to be a fan of them, plus there's my personal favorite Oscar Isaac, and Domhnall Gleeson, Adam Driver, Andy Serkis and Lupita Nyong'o, and of course the original cast of Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher and Mark Hamill. One sad point for me is that I can't see it until Sunday at the earliest, (so I'll be dying on Thurs Fri and Sat) but that's the one damper amongst the piles of insanely exciting things about this hugely anticipated continuation of the Star Wars saga. All aboard the hype train! Next stop: a galaxy far far away! Woot wooot!
Joy
Dec 25th: PG-13
Jennifer Lawrence, Bradley Cooper and David O. Russell together yet again. Honestly I don't really need to know much more than that. What I do know is that the story is really four stories, each centering around a woman played by Lawrence, and, one of the stories, I believe, is true. It's a very different premise, and I hope is successful in making another good film for these three. What really sealed the deal for me was the PG-13 rating. I'm quite impressed. And if nothing else it'll be a great acting vehicle for Lawrence.
Point Break
Dec 25th; PG-13
I recently saw the original Keanu Reeves, Patrick Swayze film, and enjoyed it, so I don't see why I shouldn't do the same for this remake someday. This one looks much more thrilling as the daredevil aspect has been kicked up to match the modern day. Otherwise it doesn't seem to have much going for it, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if it's generally considered an unworthy remake by fans of the original.
The Revenant
Dec 25th; R
The chances that I'll ever see this are pretty slim. Even if it does turn out to be considered a fantastic film and even if it does finally allow Leo to win that Oscar, it just plain in unappealing to me. In spite of the cast, which, besides Leonardo DiCaprio, includes Tom Hardy, Domhnall Gleeson, Will Poulter, and Lukas Haas. It looks abrasively intense and serious, and that is just not interesting to me. I've sat through the trailer three times now in theaters and every time I do, I feel embarrassed for Leo. He's trying so hard! So, so hard. Poor Leo. It would be really sad if he didn't get it this time. I would laugh. With this one, I'm really interested in knowing what you guys think. Are you excited to see this movie, and if so, why? For Leo's performance, or the movie itself? And does anyone share my opinion that this movie is trying so hard it's actually embarrassing, or am I alone in that?
Weee, what an exciting month! How excited are you for Star Wars, and when are you planning to see it? And are there any other movies this month that have your attention?
Friday, November 20, 2015
The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2
Spoilers throughout.
The mammoth phenomenon that, three and a half years ago, kick-started the trend of teen dystopia movie adaptations has finally reached its conclusion. The dystopia trend is still raging strong today, and shows almost no sign of relenting, yet, this final part of the final chapter of the girl who began it all feels past its prime -- and about a year overdue. The beginning of the end (in more ways than one) was the first Mockingjay movie and the decision to split the story into two movies. Did that decision help the movie-makers adapt the slightly bloated and chaotic last book more accurately? Absolutely. Was it worth it? Well...
This film centers on Katniss and co. as they give their all to one final push in the war against President Snow. It starts out with the exact same dull, droning tone that Mockingjay Part 1 gave us. I was surprised at this for about two seconds before I realized that expecting this film to be more exciting when it was filmed at the same time as the last one was totally unrealistic. I kept having this conversation in my head: Me: "This is boring and I don't care about it anymore." Me: "Okay, but at least try and view it from an unbiased perspective so you can review it." Me: "Fine." Five minutes later, Me: "This is boring!" Eventually I realized that my unbiased opinion is just that -- this movie was sluggish and dull and lifeless for more than half of the run time.
The cause of this probably came a lot from the two-part-stretch, but I also noticed that it had a lot to do with characters. The interesting, lively characters were sidelined in favor of the characters that were neck-deep in dark, heavy drama. Katniss is capable of, and has been a lively character is the past, but the movie inexplicably toned down that side of her here. For the most part she looks like she's sleepwalking through the plot. It can't be Jennifer Lawrence's fault though -- she's just too good at being depressed and despondent. When she breaks out of that rut and absolutely kills a scene at the end, I wished that Katniss had been present for more of the movie.
Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) and Gale (Liam Hemsworth) are also pretty despondent too, as they spend the movie moping -- Gale, because he knows he's losing the love-triangle battle, and Peeta, because he randomly and unwillingly flip-flops between being a good guy and a bad guy. The book's quick dismissal of Gale always bothered me, and the film does nothing to combat that. After Katniss doesn't kill him when he asks her to, and after he (possibly) inadvertently causes Prim's death, their last conversation only touches on his side of the guilt. Though I did love the delivery of Katniss' line that dismisses him forever. On Peeta's side, things often get too mushy and verge uncomfortably on cheesy as they set up for Katniss to finally choose him, but still they don't properly cover the best of their drama. At the climax when he prevents her from killing herself, the potentially powerful moment was sadly rushed and glossed over.
Relatively new characters get first priority for screen time and development, and Natalie Dormer, Elden Henson, and Mahershala Ali stand out. Old favorites only really make appearances. Haymitch (Woody Harrelson) lights up the screen when he's there. Johanna (Jena Malone) is just begging for more screen time. Effie (Elizabeth Banks) gets to show up, but doesn't get to be her usual amusing self. Caesar Flickerman (Stanley Tucci) goes full villain in his cameo-length part. Donald Sutherland and Julianne Moore keep things professional as their respective Presidents. Finnick (Sam Claflin) tries to make the most of it, but is mostly ignored before being given the same disappointing throwaway death he got in the novel. Beetee (Jeffrey Wright) practically doesn't even exist. Even Prim (Willow Shields) -- the one sure-fire sucker-punch -- isn't developed enough to get the best reaction. As the characters serve their purpose as the novel dictated, they fade away, unimportant. One novel was made into 4 hour, 20 minute film, and yet there were no character expansions.
The only thing that was deemed worth expanding, it seems, was the action sequences -- though still minimally. The action in general though is really what makes this film worth watching over reading the book. They are visually cleaner than the book's hectic descriptions, and are a welcome break from lingering shots of deadpan faces. Ideally, this and the last film combined could be at least a half-hour shorter, and that extra time was picked up mostly by making each event -- each shot -- last just a little longer. It did nothing to add to the content of course -- a ten-second shot of Katniss' face is just as descriptive as a two-second one. It's like they were too lazy to add any new content, but also knew that a movie must be over 2 hours in order to be an "epic," and these movie have to be epics.
So after an hour and a half or so off all that, we finally get to the tide-turning final battle, and the climactic aftermath, and finally, the film gets good. This is what we were waiting for, and it didn't disappoint. Because it was the best parts of the book, it was the best parts of the film. They showed it all like the book demanded, and everything fell naturally into place. I finally fully understood the scene where Katniss votes in favor of the symbolic Hunger Games. Then Plutarch's letter, read out by good ol' Haymitch, and the fan-pleasing moment between Haymitch and Effie. The way they showed the slow progression of time as life starts to find a place again with our heroine and her fellow District 12 victors was simple, and genuinely great. And then that final scene, that gives us full circle feel for the final resolution, as Jennifer Lawrence delivers one last monologue, as the woman who used to be Girl on Fire.
It is important to note, that though I give this film and Mockingjay Part 1 the same star score, and though my review of Part 1 may sound more positive, I definitely consider Part 2 to be the better of the two films.
It got really messy there for a while, but managed to wrap it all up in a satisfying way -- the exact same satisfying way the book did of course, but redundancy is underrated. Actually, it's not, but it is forgivable. Especially in this case when the franchise was so tired for so long I actually thought it would sleepwalk right though the end, but, thankfully, it wound up waking up just in time to conclude with a bang almost loud enough to cover up the previous sounds of snoring. So, no, I don't think the two-part split was worth it, but all things considered... there are worse games to play.
The mammoth phenomenon that, three and a half years ago, kick-started the trend of teen dystopia movie adaptations has finally reached its conclusion. The dystopia trend is still raging strong today, and shows almost no sign of relenting, yet, this final part of the final chapter of the girl who began it all feels past its prime -- and about a year overdue. The beginning of the end (in more ways than one) was the first Mockingjay movie and the decision to split the story into two movies. Did that decision help the movie-makers adapt the slightly bloated and chaotic last book more accurately? Absolutely. Was it worth it? Well...
 |
| Stick with me and we'll find out! Or die trying! |
This film centers on Katniss and co. as they give their all to one final push in the war against President Snow. It starts out with the exact same dull, droning tone that Mockingjay Part 1 gave us. I was surprised at this for about two seconds before I realized that expecting this film to be more exciting when it was filmed at the same time as the last one was totally unrealistic. I kept having this conversation in my head: Me: "This is boring and I don't care about it anymore." Me: "Okay, but at least try and view it from an unbiased perspective so you can review it." Me: "Fine." Five minutes later, Me: "This is boring!" Eventually I realized that my unbiased opinion is just that -- this movie was sluggish and dull and lifeless for more than half of the run time.
The cause of this probably came a lot from the two-part-stretch, but I also noticed that it had a lot to do with characters. The interesting, lively characters were sidelined in favor of the characters that were neck-deep in dark, heavy drama. Katniss is capable of, and has been a lively character is the past, but the movie inexplicably toned down that side of her here. For the most part she looks like she's sleepwalking through the plot. It can't be Jennifer Lawrence's fault though -- she's just too good at being depressed and despondent. When she breaks out of that rut and absolutely kills a scene at the end, I wished that Katniss had been present for more of the movie.
 |
| Unfortunately even Jennifer Lawrence can't carry a movie all by herself. |
Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) and Gale (Liam Hemsworth) are also pretty despondent too, as they spend the movie moping -- Gale, because he knows he's losing the love-triangle battle, and Peeta, because he randomly and unwillingly flip-flops between being a good guy and a bad guy. The book's quick dismissal of Gale always bothered me, and the film does nothing to combat that. After Katniss doesn't kill him when he asks her to, and after he (possibly) inadvertently causes Prim's death, their last conversation only touches on his side of the guilt. Though I did love the delivery of Katniss' line that dismisses him forever. On Peeta's side, things often get too mushy and verge uncomfortably on cheesy as they set up for Katniss to finally choose him, but still they don't properly cover the best of their drama. At the climax when he prevents her from killing herself, the potentially powerful moment was sadly rushed and glossed over.
 |
| I guess the film lost sight of its best features: it's powerful moments, and it's fun, memorable characters. |
Relatively new characters get first priority for screen time and development, and Natalie Dormer, Elden Henson, and Mahershala Ali stand out. Old favorites only really make appearances. Haymitch (Woody Harrelson) lights up the screen when he's there. Johanna (Jena Malone) is just begging for more screen time. Effie (Elizabeth Banks) gets to show up, but doesn't get to be her usual amusing self. Caesar Flickerman (Stanley Tucci) goes full villain in his cameo-length part. Donald Sutherland and Julianne Moore keep things professional as their respective Presidents. Finnick (Sam Claflin) tries to make the most of it, but is mostly ignored before being given the same disappointing throwaway death he got in the novel. Beetee (Jeffrey Wright) practically doesn't even exist. Even Prim (Willow Shields) -- the one sure-fire sucker-punch -- isn't developed enough to get the best reaction. As the characters serve their purpose as the novel dictated, they fade away, unimportant. One novel was made into 4 hour, 20 minute film, and yet there were no character expansions.
 |
| I can only guess that the film makers were literally too scared of the fans to make any changes at all. |
The only thing that was deemed worth expanding, it seems, was the action sequences -- though still minimally. The action in general though is really what makes this film worth watching over reading the book. They are visually cleaner than the book's hectic descriptions, and are a welcome break from lingering shots of deadpan faces. Ideally, this and the last film combined could be at least a half-hour shorter, and that extra time was picked up mostly by making each event -- each shot -- last just a little longer. It did nothing to add to the content of course -- a ten-second shot of Katniss' face is just as descriptive as a two-second one. It's like they were too lazy to add any new content, but also knew that a movie must be over 2 hours in order to be an "epic," and these movie have to be epics.
So after an hour and a half or so off all that, we finally get to the tide-turning final battle, and the climactic aftermath, and finally, the film gets good. This is what we were waiting for, and it didn't disappoint. Because it was the best parts of the book, it was the best parts of the film. They showed it all like the book demanded, and everything fell naturally into place. I finally fully understood the scene where Katniss votes in favor of the symbolic Hunger Games. Then Plutarch's letter, read out by good ol' Haymitch, and the fan-pleasing moment between Haymitch and Effie. The way they showed the slow progression of time as life starts to find a place again with our heroine and her fellow District 12 victors was simple, and genuinely great. And then that final scene, that gives us full circle feel for the final resolution, as Jennifer Lawrence delivers one last monologue, as the woman who used to be Girl on Fire.
 |
| Girl -- fire. Fire -- girl. For the last time. |
It is important to note, that though I give this film and Mockingjay Part 1 the same star score, and though my review of Part 1 may sound more positive, I definitely consider Part 2 to be the better of the two films.
It got really messy there for a while, but managed to wrap it all up in a satisfying way -- the exact same satisfying way the book did of course, but redundancy is underrated. Actually, it's not, but it is forgivable. Especially in this case when the franchise was so tired for so long I actually thought it would sleepwalk right though the end, but, thankfully, it wound up waking up just in time to conclude with a bang almost loud enough to cover up the previous sounds of snoring. So, no, I don't think the two-part split was worth it, but all things considered... there are worse games to play.
Sunday, November 1, 2015
Upcoming Movie Roundup - November
In October, I saw The Martian (click to read my raving review), and it totally rocked my world, and blew me away, and I barely even thought about any of the other movies I was mildly interested in seeing, let alone actually considered going to see any of them. Instead I spent the entire month re-watching old Matt Damon movies and longing to see The Martian again, but wasn't able to. I finally did yesterday, so now I hopefully won't be distracted from the new movies of this month of November. Cause it's looking like a very fine month for movies.
Spectre
Nov. 6th; PG-13
I'm not a huge fan of James Bond, and Daniel Craig is one of my least favorite portrayals of him. Bond movies have always been the kind of movies that are pretty to look at but not particularly deep on character, or wise when it comes to morals. But at least they were fun to watch. Recently, they haven't even been that -- just more beautiful and more meaningless than ever. So I'm more excited for Spectre being the last Craig Bond film -- so we can see who will play him next -- than I am for the actual movie. I have no doubt I will watch it eventually, it's just a matter of when. And the more thrilling and fun it is the more I'll enjoy it, and if it's just a pretty spectacle, I'll just try to appreciate that. There's a top-notch guest cast of Christoph Waltz and Lea Seydoux, but I'm most excited to see Dave Bautista as a henchman.
The Peanuts Movie
Nov. 6th; G
Okay, I just love the Peanuts too much, and this trailer did not impress me. Not even close. And it's too be expected -- I feel protective of these characters. I don't want to see some weird version of them that I arbitrarily deem to be wrong! This trailer was not at all impressive, but it didn't totally convince me that the movie will be terrible either. However, I will not be watching this movie unless something or someone can convince me that it is an actually great and actually funny and actually respectful of the source material. I'm determined to play hard to get. So win me over if you can!
Brooklyn
Nov. 6th(limited); PG-13
Set in the 1950's, a young Irish girl immigrates to America.... That's enough information for me -- they had me at "Irish." It looks like a romantic drama, and it looks really sweet. And very Irish. And very 50's. Saoirse Ronan is the girl, and the cast also includes Domhnall Gleeson and a relative unknown, Emory Cohen, who rounds out the love triangle. Honestly, this looks like the exact kind of movie that I (and the rest of the ladies in the family) will watch no matter what kind of reviews it gets, even if they're terrible, but I don't think we'll have to worry about that. It's already getting stellar reviews and I can hardly doubt it'll be a wonderfully lovely movie.
Man Up
Nov. 13th(limited); NR
Lake Bell gets accidentally mistaken by Simon Pegg as his blind date, and decides to go along with it (who wouldn't?) to humorous, and possibly disastrous results (for her -- hopefully not for the movie!). It doesn't look groundbreaking or anything, (in fact it looks downright cheesy) but hey -- it's a British rom-com with Simon Pegg! Does it really need to be groundbreaking or anything more than cute and cheesy? Answer: No. No, it does not.
The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part II
Nov 20th; PG-13
Ah, here we go -- the big one. Finally the end of The Hunger Games series! The dullness of Part I blew a lot of wind out of my sails, but I suppose it's time to try and get it all back for the big finale. It's looking huge and epic, and will certainly be exciting and intense. I'm looking forward to a few things... and not looking forward to a few things. Right now I can't see liking it more than the first or second films just because of the story, but maybe it'll make up for it with that giant budget and beautiful style -- or, maybe there'll be a few rewrites! You never know. But anyway, Jennifer Lawrence's Katniss is back for the last time, and is just as determined as ever. Finish strong, and may the odds be ever in your favor!
The Good Dinosaur
Nov 25th: PG
What? Did humans evolve from dogs now? Anyway, the next Disney Pixar heart-string-tugger is almost here, and I haven't even seen the last one yet! This one's trailer isn't very interesting to me, but I'm going to try not to base my opinion on it too much, considering Disney's terrible reputation for creating trailers that don't represent their movies properly. Since it's a Pixar, the big question here isn't "will it be a good movie?" but more, "will it actually convince me to see it?" Right now it's not off to a great start. But there's potential.
The Man in the High Castle
Nov. 20th(streaming on Amazon Prime); TV:MA
The pilot has been available fro streaming for a while but I've been waiting for the rest of the series to come along and it's not long now! Based on a Philip K. Dick novel, this Amazon series is set in an alternate reality where the Nazis won WWII. This trailer kicks the interest up even more by revealing that people find footage showing us winning the war, which creates that epic sci-fi mystery that a signature of Dick's. Rupert Evans and Rufus Sewell are the familiar names of the large cast. It looks terrifying and dark and intense, and as long as the content isn't pushed too far, I will definitely be watching it come the twentieth.
What movies are on your list this month? What are you excited for? Let me know in the comments!
Spectre
Nov. 6th; PG-13
I'm not a huge fan of James Bond, and Daniel Craig is one of my least favorite portrayals of him. Bond movies have always been the kind of movies that are pretty to look at but not particularly deep on character, or wise when it comes to morals. But at least they were fun to watch. Recently, they haven't even been that -- just more beautiful and more meaningless than ever. So I'm more excited for Spectre being the last Craig Bond film -- so we can see who will play him next -- than I am for the actual movie. I have no doubt I will watch it eventually, it's just a matter of when. And the more thrilling and fun it is the more I'll enjoy it, and if it's just a pretty spectacle, I'll just try to appreciate that. There's a top-notch guest cast of Christoph Waltz and Lea Seydoux, but I'm most excited to see Dave Bautista as a henchman.
The Peanuts Movie
Nov. 6th; G
Okay, I just love the Peanuts too much, and this trailer did not impress me. Not even close. And it's too be expected -- I feel protective of these characters. I don't want to see some weird version of them that I arbitrarily deem to be wrong! This trailer was not at all impressive, but it didn't totally convince me that the movie will be terrible either. However, I will not be watching this movie unless something or someone can convince me that it is an actually great and actually funny and actually respectful of the source material. I'm determined to play hard to get. So win me over if you can!
Brooklyn
Nov. 6th(limited); PG-13
Set in the 1950's, a young Irish girl immigrates to America.... That's enough information for me -- they had me at "Irish." It looks like a romantic drama, and it looks really sweet. And very Irish. And very 50's. Saoirse Ronan is the girl, and the cast also includes Domhnall Gleeson and a relative unknown, Emory Cohen, who rounds out the love triangle. Honestly, this looks like the exact kind of movie that I (and the rest of the ladies in the family) will watch no matter what kind of reviews it gets, even if they're terrible, but I don't think we'll have to worry about that. It's already getting stellar reviews and I can hardly doubt it'll be a wonderfully lovely movie.
Man Up
Nov. 13th(limited); NR
Lake Bell gets accidentally mistaken by Simon Pegg as his blind date, and decides to go along with it (who wouldn't?) to humorous, and possibly disastrous results (for her -- hopefully not for the movie!). It doesn't look groundbreaking or anything, (in fact it looks downright cheesy) but hey -- it's a British rom-com with Simon Pegg! Does it really need to be groundbreaking or anything more than cute and cheesy? Answer: No. No, it does not.
The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part II
Nov 20th; PG-13
Ah, here we go -- the big one. Finally the end of The Hunger Games series! The dullness of Part I blew a lot of wind out of my sails, but I suppose it's time to try and get it all back for the big finale. It's looking huge and epic, and will certainly be exciting and intense. I'm looking forward to a few things... and not looking forward to a few things. Right now I can't see liking it more than the first or second films just because of the story, but maybe it'll make up for it with that giant budget and beautiful style -- or, maybe there'll be a few rewrites! You never know. But anyway, Jennifer Lawrence's Katniss is back for the last time, and is just as determined as ever. Finish strong, and may the odds be ever in your favor!
The Good Dinosaur
Nov 25th: PG
What? Did humans evolve from dogs now? Anyway, the next Disney Pixar heart-string-tugger is almost here, and I haven't even seen the last one yet! This one's trailer isn't very interesting to me, but I'm going to try not to base my opinion on it too much, considering Disney's terrible reputation for creating trailers that don't represent their movies properly. Since it's a Pixar, the big question here isn't "will it be a good movie?" but more, "will it actually convince me to see it?" Right now it's not off to a great start. But there's potential.
The Man in the High Castle
Nov. 20th(streaming on Amazon Prime); TV:MA
The pilot has been available fro streaming for a while but I've been waiting for the rest of the series to come along and it's not long now! Based on a Philip K. Dick novel, this Amazon series is set in an alternate reality where the Nazis won WWII. This trailer kicks the interest up even more by revealing that people find footage showing us winning the war, which creates that epic sci-fi mystery that a signature of Dick's. Rupert Evans and Rufus Sewell are the familiar names of the large cast. It looks terrifying and dark and intense, and as long as the content isn't pushed too far, I will definitely be watching it come the twentieth.
What movies are on your list this month? What are you excited for? Let me know in the comments!
Friday, August 7, 2015
5 Female Characters Tag
Rules
1.) List 5 of your favorite female characters (book or screen).
2.) Tagging other people is optional
3.) If you are tagged link back to the person that tagged you.
4.) Link back to Revealed In Time
Choose one character from each category:
1.) Protagonist
2.) Villain
3.) Superhero
4.) That I would want to be friends with
5.) That I wish had better development
Thanks to Ivy Miranda of Revealed In Time for tagging me for this! I had a lot of fun deciding on and writing about these ladies.
This goes for the book Mattie too, but to me Steinfeld's portrayal of her was so close to perfection that the two are pretty much indistinguishable. What I love about Mattie is her no-nonsense attitude and tightly focused attentions. She has one goal for the whole story, and will not be pulled off into rabbit trails or be otherwise dissuaded from pushing stubbornly on towards that goal. She is extremely mature for her age in some ways, but in others is embarrassingly naive. Like all great protagonist, she is brave and kind. She is very guarded, but with the few glimpses we get into her heart, we can see that it is full and deep. Though she is not a traditional protagonist you'd expect out of a fourteen-year-old girl, nor the traditional protagonist of a western tale, she is easy to understand, and easy to love and cheer for.
(Spoilers) It's a strong word to call her, but one of the main principles I base my love of The Great Gatsby on is that Daisy is its villain -- not Tom Buchanan, nor George Wilson. Daisy on the surface is a beautiful, alluring woman who is good at making people like her, and making it seem effortless. Underneath, she is as cold and as selfish as they come. She lets Jay destroy himself in his pursuit of her without a care. She is the indirect cause of his death (and the direct cause of Myrtle's) but never confesses and even never appears to feel remorse. As Fitzgerald says about her and Tom, "...they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness..." Only Tom was misled. Daisy knew everything, and everything that she was doing, and she did it all anyway. She is incredibly fascinating to me. Carey Mulligan in the 2013 adaptation makes a fantastic effort of portraying her villainous complexities, but the character wasn't written for the screen properly, and doesn't reach the heights of the Fitzgerald's Daisy.
She doesn't exactly have superpowers, but she is still absolutely a superhero. After appearing in four movies she collected an impressive amount of development, doing a great job in overcoming her exclusively eye-candy role in Iron Man 2, and with her last film landed solidly at the top of my favorite female superheroes. Her Winter Soldier version gives her lots of likability and normality, but Joss Whedon's version of her is my favorite -- she's like a femme fatale, playing the bad guys with smooth elegance, and you're never quite sure if that heart on her sleeve is the real one or not. I love that she has moments of yearning for a family, but is too loyal to her job of saving the world to abandon it to satisfy those desires. I love her graceful, no nonsense hand-to-hand fighting style, and I adore that she can handle herself with all the guys, but still acts like a lady.
I know. It's a strange pick. Katniss is basically the complete opposite of everything you'd associate with being friendly. She even says of herself that she's not good at making friends. I don't doubt that if I lived in her world and we had a chance at being friends that it wouldn't actually happen, but we're using hypothetical's here, and the word "want." Aside from my low chances of hypothetically getting into the affections of the great Miss Everdeen, the fact is that Katniss is one of the best people anyone could ever be friends with. Think of the people she is friends with, and how devotedly loyal she is to every single one. She may not come to care for a person easily, but once she does she cares with every last drop she has to give. Plus, I like to imagine that we'd get along. She's a very open and honest person with her friends, and if someone is honest with me, I find it easy to follow suit. And honesty without fear of losing the friendship is an amazing thing.
This was definitely the hardest category for me, because when I think a character has bad development, I automatically don't like them. I chose Tauriel, because I wanted to like her. I really, really, did. And some of the time I was able to. Evangeline Lily made her charming and sincere in her way, and really good at destroying orcs with style. But the hints at her romance with Legolas were weird; and her full-on romance with Kili even more so. Even her relationship with Thranduil was odd. She simply did not feel like a true Middle-Earth lady. She only served as ways and means of developing other characters, moving the plot along, and expanding the run time. Too bad, but even so annoyingly developed as she was, she wasn't distractingly bad, because the movies often matched her level pretty well.
I will tag:
Lizzie
Rissi
Hamlette
Olivia
And since tagging is optional, I'm sure that "stealing" is encouraged, so if you want to do it -- please do!
Thanks to Ivy Miranda of Revealed In Time for tagging me for this! I had a lot of fun deciding on and writing about these ladies.
Protagonist:
Mattie Ross
Played by Hailee Steinfeld
In True Grit
Villain:
Daisy Buchanan
Played by Carey Mulligan
(Spoilers) It's a strong word to call her, but one of the main principles I base my love of The Great Gatsby on is that Daisy is its villain -- not Tom Buchanan, nor George Wilson. Daisy on the surface is a beautiful, alluring woman who is good at making people like her, and making it seem effortless. Underneath, she is as cold and as selfish as they come. She lets Jay destroy himself in his pursuit of her without a care. She is the indirect cause of his death (and the direct cause of Myrtle's) but never confesses and even never appears to feel remorse. As Fitzgerald says about her and Tom, "...they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness..." Only Tom was misled. Daisy knew everything, and everything that she was doing, and she did it all anyway. She is incredibly fascinating to me. Carey Mulligan in the 2013 adaptation makes a fantastic effort of portraying her villainous complexities, but the character wasn't written for the screen properly, and doesn't reach the heights of the Fitzgerald's Daisy.
Superhero
Natasha Romanoff
Played by Scarlett Johansson
She doesn't exactly have superpowers, but she is still absolutely a superhero. After appearing in four movies she collected an impressive amount of development, doing a great job in overcoming her exclusively eye-candy role in Iron Man 2, and with her last film landed solidly at the top of my favorite female superheroes. Her Winter Soldier version gives her lots of likability and normality, but Joss Whedon's version of her is my favorite -- she's like a femme fatale, playing the bad guys with smooth elegance, and you're never quite sure if that heart on her sleeve is the real one or not. I love that she has moments of yearning for a family, but is too loyal to her job of saving the world to abandon it to satisfy those desires. I love her graceful, no nonsense hand-to-hand fighting style, and I adore that she can handle herself with all the guys, but still acts like a lady.
That I would want to be friends with:
Katniss Everdeen
Played by Jennifer Lawrence
I know. It's a strange pick. Katniss is basically the complete opposite of everything you'd associate with being friendly. She even says of herself that she's not good at making friends. I don't doubt that if I lived in her world and we had a chance at being friends that it wouldn't actually happen, but we're using hypothetical's here, and the word "want." Aside from my low chances of hypothetically getting into the affections of the great Miss Everdeen, the fact is that Katniss is one of the best people anyone could ever be friends with. Think of the people she is friends with, and how devotedly loyal she is to every single one. She may not come to care for a person easily, but once she does she cares with every last drop she has to give. Plus, I like to imagine that we'd get along. She's a very open and honest person with her friends, and if someone is honest with me, I find it easy to follow suit. And honesty without fear of losing the friendship is an amazing thing.
That I wish I had better development:
Tauriel
Played by Evangeline Lily
This was definitely the hardest category for me, because when I think a character has bad development, I automatically don't like them. I chose Tauriel, because I wanted to like her. I really, really, did. And some of the time I was able to. Evangeline Lily made her charming and sincere in her way, and really good at destroying orcs with style. But the hints at her romance with Legolas were weird; and her full-on romance with Kili even more so. Even her relationship with Thranduil was odd. She simply did not feel like a true Middle-Earth lady. She only served as ways and means of developing other characters, moving the plot along, and expanding the run time. Too bad, but even so annoyingly developed as she was, she wasn't distractingly bad, because the movies often matched her level pretty well.
I will tag:
Lizzie
Rissi
Hamlette
Olivia
And since tagging is optional, I'm sure that "stealing" is encouraged, so if you want to do it -- please do!
Friday, November 21, 2014
The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1
Spoilers are marked.
The Games are over; the fire has caught; now it's war.
And everyone's on board with it, except the most important one -- Katniss. Still traumatized from the Quarter Quell, the news that District 12 was completely obliterated (and that 13 wasn't), and the fact that Peeta was left behind when she was rescued, the last thing she wants to do is be the Mockingjay, the face of the rebellion, standing in front of more cameras, pretending again.
Further than that, it's hard to tell what of the plot counts as setup, and what is actual plot development. But it's not like you really need an introduction anyway -- it's the Hunger Games! So I'll just leave it there, and jump right in.
Jennifer Lawrence. Jennifer is the lead, and she leads. We don't have to even think about it anymore; we know Katniss like we know ourselves. Even when she does stupid things that would make us dislike any other character, with her we understand. We know she's not prefect -- but she is perfect. When the film slows down and borders on boring, Jennifer's face, perfectly encapsulating the character, no tiniest movement out of character, even the blankest of expressions speaking volumes, keeps us from growing bored. It's been nearly three years since Katniss fully came to life, and we've still yet to cease being fascinated with her.
Who next? Katniss is so prominently the main character that everyone else is equally and significantly below her. Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) would be, but his role is dramatically diminished for this installment, so, Gale. Liam Hemsworth's Gale finally gets some time unshared with Peeta here, but not as much as I expected. I always refer to him as "the lesser Hemsworth" but Liam shows no signs of being any less talented than his older brother, and has completely melded with Gale in my mind, just as most the other actors and their characters have. So I was surprised when his role didn't seem any expanded from the last two movies. Thinking about it, it was bigger; it had to be, but it didn't feel it. He had two or three scenes to show his acting abilities and develop character, but otherwise he was just there; being Gale of course, but in a stagnate way instead of growing.
Actually, I could say the same about almost every returning character here; they're all stagnate. And I guess we all know why. (More on that later.) Woody Harrelson as Haymitch continues to be sarcastic and sharp; Elizabeth Banks as Effie continues to be oblivious and stuck-up; the two share a funny "what in the world" moment. Phillip Seymour Hoffman's Plutarch Havensbee amusingly appears to be slightly claustrophobic. Beetee (Jeffery Wright) is there, doing computer stuff and inventing things. Prim (Willow Shields) is still smarter than Katniss, and their mother quietly worries. Buttercup is happily present, and orange and grumpy. President Snow (Donald Sutherland) is evil, cold, and creepy. New characters are topped by Julianne Moore as President Coin, perfectly cast, perfectly no-nonsense and authoritative. Also Mahershala Ali as Boggs, and the lovely Natalie Dormer as Cressida, my favorite addition. I love her hairstyle. And Pollux (Elden Henson) and Castor (Wes Chatham), off to a good start.
Sam Claflin as Finnick manages some significant motion in character development, but it is easier for him since he was only introduced in the last movie -- where he kept a put-on persona. Here, Finnick's true self comes out in patches, as his newly-unnecessary cocky and suave self begins to melt away. And of course it only makes him all the more endearing. I'm sure I'm not alone in wishing more screen time for this guy, though all the characters were overlooked by my standards.
Like its predecessor, Mockingjay is magnificent to look at. Set mostly underground, the view isn't quite so magnificent, but it is filmed with authority and strong style to great effect. There also isn't much action, but the little there is is done expertly. There was one moment when the word "shaky-cam" came to mind, but it wasn't out of place and didn't last. And the suspense of the climax was so effective and brilliantly edited, that I felt it, and had to remind myself that I knew what happens.
I almost don't even need to mention adaptation because there's nothing more to say after I say that Francis Lawrence is very good at adapting accurately, and that is exactly what he did here. It's extremely rare for me to have no complaints when comparing a movie to a book when I read before watching, so mark this -- I have no complaints. Wait, I do -- why did they give Gale a crossbow? He can use a real bow you know! So change the above to "no significant complaints" and we're good.
Honestly, I would have been okay with some changes. Mockingjay was my least favorite of the books, and I thought it was possible for the film to improve upon it. And with the two parts, I thought it likely to succeed -- more time equals more time to expand the parts left wanting in the novel. Like character development; you can never have too much of that, and these characters are worth it. Or action. They did add two scenes of action, but they wound up as meaningless unexciting filler with no familiar characters being involved. This was this film's one falter -- compared to the other two, it was downright boring, and nothing happened. Sadly, nothing exciting could have possibly happened, unless they blatantly deviated from the novel to spice things up. Because it was only the first half of the novel, and remember the first two; the first halves were nothing but setup.
So should they have made it only one movie? It's a conundrum; to separate them was to destroy the structure (if you looks at the films individually, which for now, we must) but to put them together would have been to force the final battle into the small proportions of the Games, and that would have likely resulted in everything being rushed and squeezed in confusingly -- much like the book was, or even more. Personally, I would have gone with the three-hour Peter Jackson style movie, but since that wasn't an option, this is the next best thing: waiting a year to finish the movie I started last night.
As a stand-alone movie, it doesn't; it can't. But as the first half of the last of a trilogy, which is how I am judging it, it was exactly what I was hoping for.
MAJOR SPOILERS here to the end!
Here be all my thoughts on anything spoilery. Beginning with Peeta, who didn't get a paragraph above because everything to be said about him is a spoiler. Josh Hutcherson may not have had a lot of time on screen, but he had a ton to chew on with Peeta's complete and terrifying character change, which was handled like a pro -- perhaps because he is one. He makes us confused and worried and then creeped out, and by the end... total shock. I'm not exactly sure what to think of their digitally making him so thin, but I guess it would have been too much to do it the hard way, and unconvincing to let him look normal.
I also didn't mention Jena Malone's Johanna, partially for the same reason, but mostly because she gets all of about 4 seconds of screen time. Still, she's bald and crazy-looking and smiles perfectly and leaves an impression.
The part in the climax that I mentioned was brilliant was the immaculate way the raid to rescue the victors from the Capitol was cut in with Finnick telling his story in front of the camera, and Katniss looking on -- with a similar expression to ours as we feel the suspense. It was spellbinding for a while but it went on too long that way, and the spell broke before it was supposed to; but until then it was my favorite part of the movie.
Really, MAJOR end-of-the-movie SPOILERS now. Final warning.
I made two predictions concerning this film. First was that it would be better than the book, and for that we'll have to wait for full completion to see. The second was where Part 1 would leave off. I picked the right general time, but missed hitting it exactly by about 3 minutes. I guessed it would end right after Peeta tries to kill Katniss, and for a terrifying moment of blackened screen I panicked that I might be right. The last three-ish minutes were very nice of them to include, but the overall effect is the same; this film was stopped short smack in the middle; "cliffhanger" doesn't even describe it. The one in Catching Fire was where it was supposed to be -- this one... this was no place to end a movie. And a year from now we'll know whether it was worth it.
All I know now is that this is definitely the place to end this review.
Or maybe I should have made it into two parts.
The Games are over; the fire has caught; now it's war.
And everyone's on board with it, except the most important one -- Katniss. Still traumatized from the Quarter Quell, the news that District 12 was completely obliterated (and that 13 wasn't), and the fact that Peeta was left behind when she was rescued, the last thing she wants to do is be the Mockingjay, the face of the rebellion, standing in front of more cameras, pretending again.
Further than that, it's hard to tell what of the plot counts as setup, and what is actual plot development. But it's not like you really need an introduction anyway -- it's the Hunger Games! So I'll just leave it there, and jump right in.
Jennifer Lawrence. Jennifer is the lead, and she leads. We don't have to even think about it anymore; we know Katniss like we know ourselves. Even when she does stupid things that would make us dislike any other character, with her we understand. We know she's not prefect -- but she is perfect. When the film slows down and borders on boring, Jennifer's face, perfectly encapsulating the character, no tiniest movement out of character, even the blankest of expressions speaking volumes, keeps us from growing bored. It's been nearly three years since Katniss fully came to life, and we've still yet to cease being fascinated with her.
 |
| The Girl on Fire; The Mockingjay. |
Who next? Katniss is so prominently the main character that everyone else is equally and significantly below her. Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) would be, but his role is dramatically diminished for this installment, so, Gale. Liam Hemsworth's Gale finally gets some time unshared with Peeta here, but not as much as I expected. I always refer to him as "the lesser Hemsworth" but Liam shows no signs of being any less talented than his older brother, and has completely melded with Gale in my mind, just as most the other actors and their characters have. So I was surprised when his role didn't seem any expanded from the last two movies. Thinking about it, it was bigger; it had to be, but it didn't feel it. He had two or three scenes to show his acting abilities and develop character, but otherwise he was just there; being Gale of course, but in a stagnate way instead of growing.
 |
| Still, he's at his most likable in this movie. |
Actually, I could say the same about almost every returning character here; they're all stagnate. And I guess we all know why. (More on that later.) Woody Harrelson as Haymitch continues to be sarcastic and sharp; Elizabeth Banks as Effie continues to be oblivious and stuck-up; the two share a funny "what in the world" moment. Phillip Seymour Hoffman's Plutarch Havensbee amusingly appears to be slightly claustrophobic. Beetee (Jeffery Wright) is there, doing computer stuff and inventing things. Prim (Willow Shields) is still smarter than Katniss, and their mother quietly worries. Buttercup is happily present, and orange and grumpy. President Snow (Donald Sutherland) is evil, cold, and creepy. New characters are topped by Julianne Moore as President Coin, perfectly cast, perfectly no-nonsense and authoritative. Also Mahershala Ali as Boggs, and the lovely Natalie Dormer as Cressida, my favorite addition. I love her hairstyle. And Pollux (Elden Henson) and Castor (Wes Chatham), off to a good start.
 |
| Yeah. She's cool. |
Sam Claflin as Finnick manages some significant motion in character development, but it is easier for him since he was only introduced in the last movie -- where he kept a put-on persona. Here, Finnick's true self comes out in patches, as his newly-unnecessary cocky and suave self begins to melt away. And of course it only makes him all the more endearing. I'm sure I'm not alone in wishing more screen time for this guy, though all the characters were overlooked by my standards.
 |
| I'm so glad my original doubts about Claflin's abilities to play the part went unfounded. |
Like its predecessor, Mockingjay is magnificent to look at. Set mostly underground, the view isn't quite so magnificent, but it is filmed with authority and strong style to great effect. There also isn't much action, but the little there is is done expertly. There was one moment when the word "shaky-cam" came to mind, but it wasn't out of place and didn't last. And the suspense of the climax was so effective and brilliantly edited, that I felt it, and had to remind myself that I knew what happens.
I almost don't even need to mention adaptation because there's nothing more to say after I say that Francis Lawrence is very good at adapting accurately, and that is exactly what he did here. It's extremely rare for me to have no complaints when comparing a movie to a book when I read before watching, so mark this -- I have no complaints. Wait, I do -- why did they give Gale a crossbow? He can use a real bow you know! So change the above to "no significant complaints" and we're good.
 |
| Yep. We're all good. |
Honestly, I would have been okay with some changes. Mockingjay was my least favorite of the books, and I thought it was possible for the film to improve upon it. And with the two parts, I thought it likely to succeed -- more time equals more time to expand the parts left wanting in the novel. Like character development; you can never have too much of that, and these characters are worth it. Or action. They did add two scenes of action, but they wound up as meaningless unexciting filler with no familiar characters being involved. This was this film's one falter -- compared to the other two, it was downright boring, and nothing happened. Sadly, nothing exciting could have possibly happened, unless they blatantly deviated from the novel to spice things up. Because it was only the first half of the novel, and remember the first two; the first halves were nothing but setup.
So should they have made it only one movie? It's a conundrum; to separate them was to destroy the structure (if you looks at the films individually, which for now, we must) but to put them together would have been to force the final battle into the small proportions of the Games, and that would have likely resulted in everything being rushed and squeezed in confusingly -- much like the book was, or even more. Personally, I would have gone with the three-hour Peter Jackson style movie, but since that wasn't an option, this is the next best thing: waiting a year to finish the movie I started last night.
As a stand-alone movie, it doesn't; it can't. But as the first half of the last of a trilogy, which is how I am judging it, it was exactly what I was hoping for.
 |
| So, it was half of exactly what I was hoping for. |
MAJOR SPOILERS here to the end!
Here be all my thoughts on anything spoilery. Beginning with Peeta, who didn't get a paragraph above because everything to be said about him is a spoiler. Josh Hutcherson may not have had a lot of time on screen, but he had a ton to chew on with Peeta's complete and terrifying character change, which was handled like a pro -- perhaps because he is one. He makes us confused and worried and then creeped out, and by the end... total shock. I'm not exactly sure what to think of their digitally making him so thin, but I guess it would have been too much to do it the hard way, and unconvincing to let him look normal.
 |
| And the character only gets more interesting and complicated from here! |
I also didn't mention Jena Malone's Johanna, partially for the same reason, but mostly because she gets all of about 4 seconds of screen time. Still, she's bald and crazy-looking and smiles perfectly and leaves an impression.
The part in the climax that I mentioned was brilliant was the immaculate way the raid to rescue the victors from the Capitol was cut in with Finnick telling his story in front of the camera, and Katniss looking on -- with a similar expression to ours as we feel the suspense. It was spellbinding for a while but it went on too long that way, and the spell broke before it was supposed to; but until then it was my favorite part of the movie.
Really, MAJOR end-of-the-movie SPOILERS now. Final warning.
I made two predictions concerning this film. First was that it would be better than the book, and for that we'll have to wait for full completion to see. The second was where Part 1 would leave off. I picked the right general time, but missed hitting it exactly by about 3 minutes. I guessed it would end right after Peeta tries to kill Katniss, and for a terrifying moment of blackened screen I panicked that I might be right. The last three-ish minutes were very nice of them to include, but the overall effect is the same; this film was stopped short smack in the middle; "cliffhanger" doesn't even describe it. The one in Catching Fire was where it was supposed to be -- this one... this was no place to end a movie. And a year from now we'll know whether it was worth it.
All I know now is that this is definitely the place to end this review.
Or maybe I should have made it into two parts.
 |
| Next movie -- last movie. Let's do this. We can. We can wait a year. A whole year... |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)