It Chapter Two

Spoiler-free!

What's more likely to be a great movie -- one that ends with the characters making a promise to return and fight the evil again whenever it may return, or one in which all they do is make good on that promise?

Directed, once again, by Andy Muschietti.

Given that Chapter Two and Chapter One come from the same singular book, Chapter Two has no real right to feel so much like a sequel. Ideally it should have a "Part 2" flavor. If the filmmakers knew how successful Chapter One would be, I bet they would have filmed both parts at once. Then the de-aging of the child actors wouldn't have been necessary, and the story could have been developed to flow better between the two films. As it is, the two parts feel out of sync with each other. One being bigger in size, and the other more compact yet weighty with substance.

Much like what happened with Season 2 of Stranger Things, this sequel is painfully aware of the wild success of its predecessor. You can see it in the kids' performances, who are much less organic here. Like they're putting on a show for an audience instead of digging into honesty and stretching their acting chops. And while the adults don't come across that way at all, their script does it for them on occasion, with throwaway callback lines. Such as when they go in the well house and Bev dryly proclaims, "Beep beep, Richie." Another thing the adults have going for them; they're way better at delivering comedy.

As a result, the adult's version feels lighter in tone.

Laughs came freely; as for scares, it hit Not Scary At All for me. They tried to match scary-levels with Chapter One, but the method degraded slightly; there are a lot -- and I mean a lot of jump-scare moments. And every single one of them follows the exact same pattern. 1. Thing might be scary. 2. Thing is maybe not so scary after all. 3. Pause pause pause... 4. THING IS SCARY! Inevitably, the thing morphs into CGI, half the time with aspects of Pennywise's face pasted on it. I actually prefer when horror film don't scare me, but it does bother me that so much time was spent of these ultimately useless moments.

From my perspective "scary" is a lot less important than simply "effective." And the only times these moments were effective is when it led to an actual kill. Those are the ones that take their time to craft the creepiness and the dread. The most effective part of the movie was waiting for a jump scare while the camera lingered on Bill Skarsgård, motionless, drooling, his one eye pointing out to the side. No CGI, just an effective performance, given time to breathe and settle before it bursts. Other horror elements were more varying degrees of cool, or neat, or messed-up, which works fine for me. Overcrowding and rushing were the problems there.

But casting was a resounding win!

I think it's universally acknowledged that the casting here is pitch perfect. Even the well-known actors, Jessica Chastain, James McAvoy, and Bill Hader are fantastically spot-on. Isaiah Mustafa, Jay Ryan, James Ransone, and Andy Bean were clearly cast more for their accurate appearances, but also deliver wonderfully on the performance side. Hader steals almost too many scenes, and my favorite was Ransone as Eddie. The best scene in the whole movie was their meeting up and having dinner. Their reactions to seeing each other again and how the nail the same feel and dynamic their kid counterparts did.

A better version of this film is out in the cosmos somewhere. I don't know how it works, but it likely required at least some changes to the first movie. It's a hefty story to swing in just two movies, so one great film and one slightly less-so isn't a disappointing result, especially if you consider less pleasant alternatives. This two-part series avoided disaster by breaking up repetitive material with elevating moments from a brilliant cast, and regular interludes of real, fascinating, quality content. My only real regret is that Chapter One ended in a more satisfying and thematically potent way.

No more floating, but I sure do hope Bill Skarsgård gets all the roles he could wish for after this!

The best ending of a series ideally belongs at the very end. But I loved Chapter One as is, so if that movie's greatness required this one to fall slightly short, I'll take it and be happy. Since this continuation isn't necessary to get a complete and satisfying story, there's no harm done either way. It Chapter Two is like the cherry on top of a giant sundae, or a red balloon in the hand of a clown; it doesn't add much in terms of substance, but it sure does complete the picture nicely.

Upcoming Movie Roundup - September

In August, I only saw one of the four movies I was especially interested in, but that one already improved the movie year significantly. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (review) was wonderfully entertaining and moving, a great character piece, and a stylishly laid-back epic. It may be my favorite film of the year! I still need and plan to see The Peanut Butter Falcon, Blinded by the Light, and Ready or Not, but 2019 is maybe beginning to look up.

And the looking up continues into September, where there are two must-see movies for me! What looks good to you this month? Hope you all had a wonderful summer!



It Chapter Two
In theaters Sept 6th; R
Must see of the month number one! I've been anticipating this one since Chapter One released and even though some are saying it's not the greatest, that was said about Chapter One too, so I plan on enjoying it all even if it's flawed. I love the long run time and I love that it will give me a good excuse to rewatch Chapter One beforehand. The cast looks great, (I'm glad the kids are back too) it looks epic and not too scary for me (hopefully! haha) -- I think I'm ready!




The Goldfinch
In theaters Sept 13th; R
I'm not usually so interested in straight-up dramas, but this one's cast grabbed my attention. Ansel Elgort, Aneurin Barnard and Finn Wolfhard playing the same character, Luke Wilson, and Nicole Kidman to name a few. And it's based on a book so the plot is likely to be worthwhile -- though I have to say, based on the trailer it's hard to tell what the movie is really about. Someone stole the painting before the explosion or something? (Maybe I'm supposed to read the book first, haha.) The cast will get me to watch it, and we'll see for the rest!




Freaks
Limited release Sept 13th; R
I'm going to keep this one on my radar for whenever it comes to streaming. Could be interesting (reviews suggest it's good) or it could be not my thing. Or mildly my thing which is most likely. As long as they don't stay inside the whole movie, I expect it'll be worth a watch! Looks kind of like what an indie X-Men movie might be like.




Monos
Limited release Sept 13th; R
Nice looking trailer, but what does it all mean? What's the plot, the point? I guess we have to see the movie to find out. Not exactly motivating for me though I'm sure the whole thing will be visually fantastic.




Ad Astra
In theaters Sept 20th; PG-13
I was already on board when this trailer released because I will see anything that's set in space, and this one is particularly epic-looking. And now, since I saw Once Upon a Time in Hollywood and liked Brad Pitt in it so much, I'm double on board, and excited to see another potentially great character and performance from him. Tommy Lee Jones, Liv Tyler, Ruth Negga, and Donald Sutherland round out the cast. Also, Loren Dean likes to come out of the woodwork for scifi films, doesn't he? Anyway, this could be a favorite of the year for me, if it goes well. Looks beautiful, with a broad scope and intimate detail. Must-see number two!




Downton Abbey
In theaters Sept 20th; PG
This has no appeal for me but I know there has to still be people out there who are sad about Downton Abbey ending and are probably over the moon about this film. It so fan-service-y but I guess that should be expected. It exists to serve fans. So y'all enjoy.




Villains
Limited release Sept 20th; R
A horror comedy with Maika Monroe and Bill Skarsgård? Sounds like a yes to me! Seems like the sort of plot that would only work if done really well, but it being a comedy is going in the right direction. I expect it would be a fun watch even if it's not exceptional. Maika Monroe rules stylish horror films and Bill Skarsgård should be in all the movies.




21 Bridges
In theaters Sept 27th; NR
The plot is like the end of Batman Begins where they close off the island to contain all the escaped villains. Otherwise, this doesn't have a big draw. Even the movie thinks its biggest draw is the Russo Brothers producing. Producing doesn't mean much, I'd rather know who directed, or who wrote it. Nice to see Chadwick Boseman do non-superhero stuff but he might as well be playing T'Challa here too. One thing I really do like the look of here is that it's not a blatant anti-police movie. It's just an action-thriller about justice, plain and simple. I'd watch it; depends on reception as to when.




Abominable
In theaters Sept 27th; PG
I'm willing to give this one a chance but to be honest it doesn't look very good. If the movie has as much cliche writing and benign jokes as the trailer, it'll be the sort of thing that only kids will enjoy. Making animated flicks to only appeal to kids is such a waste.

Upcoming Movie Roundup - June

In May I got the surprise of the year when I went to see Deadpool 2, and absolutely loved it! Read my review here. My favorite superhero movie since Spider-Man: Homecoming. It was very R-rated, but used its rating with more discretion than the first one, making it more loyal in tone to the comics. The jokes hit and Deadpool "dies" a lot in some awesome action scenes which was something the last one sorely missed. I'll probably see Solo soonish too. Maybe today.

Let the summer officially begin! What's been your favorite of the year so far? And what are you looking forward to next? Let me know in the comments. With five Fridays in June there's LOTS to look at this month! Let's get to it:


Upgrade
Jun 1st; R
This looks like a fun hardcore action flick. One neat premise -- where an AI implant allows a crippled man to go on a revenge spree -- that's just about as catered to the R-rated action genre as a premise can be. I expect some of the plot will be familiar, but that's okay by me as long as it's done well. The action looks great -- by the cinematography mostly. I really like it when the camera is far enough away so we can actually see what's going on, and doesn't cut every half-second. Plus -- those spin moves. This one's out today, and already has enough good reviews that I'm definitely interested to see it for myself.




American Animals
Jun 1st; R
Also out today, and also getting some good reviews. This one caught my attention with it's cast of Barry Keoghan and Evan Peters, but finding out more about it, my interest has only been dropping since. It definitely looks like a well made movie; I just expect that the plot would irritate and stress me out. I don't know anything about the real-life event, but I seriously doubt this movie could end well. It's the sort of thing I'd watch when it's streaming for free.




Adrift
Jun 1st; PG-13
Hopefully that's the last time I ever have to see a trailer for this movie. (Update: It wasn't.) As far as true stories go, I'd a million times rather watch the above than this, even though I expect this one has a happy ending. Shailene Woodley and Sam Claflin are meant to be a big draw (Tris and Finnick, together at last! Wait...) but for me it has the opposite effect. I'm so full of ugh over this movie, but I had to include it, to say no thank you. So -- no thank you!




Breath
Jun 1st; NR
Simon Baker directs, based on a novel. It's set in the 70's in Australia, and it appears to be a coming of age type movie with surfing. So that's all different and interesting. I'm not much a surfing movie fan, but I do like a good coming of ager. Will keep an eye open.




All Summers End
Jun 1st; NR
I heard about this movie in 2014 whenever Tye Sheridan had a few guest appearances on Last Man Standing as Kaitlyn Dever's boyfriend. I wonder why it took so long to be released, but that explains why they look so young. This is the sort of movie I'll be watching, disregarding reviews, without expecting much. Any other day I might not have given it a second look, but it's got Tye Sheridan, and I've low-key been waiting for four years, so....




Ocean's 8
Jun 8th; PG-13
Oh boy. Another Ghostbusters, or something actually good this time? I expect more the former. I'd be much more interested even if they weren't trying to bank of the Ocean's movies. Whether you call it a remake a reboot or a sequel, it can't help but feel like it's clutching onto the boys for support instead of trying to stand on its own high-heeled legs. Maybe it can stand on its own; maybe it can't. It's just a matter of principle, and one of the warning signs of a bad film.




Hereditary
Jun 8th; R
YIKES. This looks like a great horror movie. Which is why I'll probably never watch it.




Hotel Artemis
Jun 8th; R
If I ever watch this, it will be for Jeff Goldblum and sunglasses cinematography. I dunno, I mean, there doesn't appear to be anything wrong with it. It's got a nice cast, a scifi kind of premise. A siege plot. A nice look. It's just not appealing to me in any significant way. If it ever does, I'll be there.




Incredibles 2
Jun 15th; PG
I know everyone's excited about this, I just find it hard not to be cynical about sequels, even when it's Pixar. Not that Pixar has exactly been up to par recently. There are two main things about this sequel that gives me hope: One, Brad Bird is back. That is extremely comforting. And two, Jack-Jack's portal superpowers. I love that. So we'll see I guess!




The Yellow Birds
Jun 15th; R
Hmm. Alden Ehrenreich and Tye Sheridan war movie. Oh and Toni Collette. She has quite a few movies coming out this month. I don't think the movie looks particularly good, and I'm not generally big on modern war films, but I may give it a shot sometime for the cast.




Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom
Jun 22nd; PG-13
I seriously doubt that I'll enjoy this one as much as I did the first Jurassic World, but I also expect that I'll be seeing it in theaters. Unless it really bombs. Chris Pratt has lost some of his appeal to me, but I'm sure he can still carry a movie with star-power. And I'm sure the dinos will look great on the big screen. And hey, this one has Rafe Spall in it. He's probably a bad guy, but that's okay. He's great.




Under the Silver Lake
Jun 22nd; R
Haha wow, this movie looks like it was made for Andrew Garfield; perfect for him in a way no one could have guessed kind of thing. Intriguing and bizarre. My only real question is: how did that girl go swimming and still have all her makeup be so perfect and completely not smudged??




The Catcher was a Spy
Jun 22nd; R
Paul Rudd leading a great cast; WWII spy movie. But, true story, so I guess I should find out what happens before I watch it. Looks kinda fun and kinda serious. I'd be willing to give it a go, even just for Rudd. I was like "Catcher of what?" and then I watched the trailer.




Sicario: Day of the Soldado
Jun 29th; R
The first one was a good movie, and when this one was announced I figured it'd be terrible, especially when I heard Emily Blunt wasn't in it. But really, it's going in such a different direction, I think I've changed my mind. It looks fun; very different from the first, but still with Benicio Del Toro and Josh Brolin's characters. Brolin in on a roll this summer, my goodness. So I doubt it'll have the immaculate and intentional filmmaking of the first, but I also doubt it'll be a waste of time.




Leave no Trace
Jun 29th; PG
Looks like a sweet movie. Also a good movie for hermits. From the writer/Director of Winter's Bone, whoever that is. And that was a good movie, so sure; advertise that. But one of the blips here compares this girl to Jennifer Lawrence is a completely blatant way, and that seems unfair. Salt-of-the-earth people aren't really that scarce, and I'm sure one could think of a way to praise this girl's performance and demeanor without resorting to such laziness.




Woman Walks Ahead
Jun 29th; R
Sam Rockwell? Sign me up, boys! Although the movie looks to be so full of politics that it doesn't have any room for anything else, I'll give it a chance for Sam. Jessica Chastain is great too. I'm sure she makes an excellent lead. And modern-made westerns are a fun thing. Or at least they can be. We'll see what happens.

Upcoming Movie Roundup - March

In February, The Lego Batman Movie turned out to be every bit the awesome must-see flick for every age that its predecessor was! Read about how awesome and hilarious I thought it was here! No other movies tempted me last month, but I am watching Legion on FX, and so far it is quite excellent.

March marks the beginning of 2017's highly anticipated movie lineup, with big release after big release. I'm sure I'll get to the theater at least once! What looks good to you? Are any of your most anticipated 2017 movies releasing this month?


Logan
Mar 3rd, R
Hugh Jackman's Wolverine has always been my favorite thing about the X-Men franchise, but his solo movies have never been quite what they should be. Maybe with Logan, his run will end with changing that! This one's already got excellent reviews from critics, and they finally buckled down and gave him an R-rated movie -- something I am all for on the counts of violence and language if the story calls for it. Annoyingly, there is also brief nudity, and while it's a good sign that the movie isn't filled with nudity and sex, that brief inclusion will almost certainly cause my family to wait for the DVD.




Before I Fall
Mar 3rd, PG-13
Am I a sucker for "Groundhog Day" movies? Yes, yes I am. This one mixes the fun gimmick with high school drama for a popular girl who lives the same day over and over -- ending each day dying in a car crash -- and begins to wonder if her life really is as great as she thinks. It's unlikely that this movie will reach the great levels of Groundhog Day, or even Edge of Tomorrow, but that doesn't at all mean that it's not going to be a worthwhile movie in its own right. I hope it will be, and I'm curious to see for myself.




Table 19
Mar 3rd, PG-13
Cute and possibly cynical dramedy with possible romance starring Anna Kendrick, anyone? Yeah, this is one of those chick-flicks that just seems like a no-brianer, with the charm and quirky appeal the trailer exhibits.




Kong: Skull Island
Mar 10th, PG-13
Look -- I'm under no delusion about this movie that it'll be anything but ridiculous. The first trailers tried to evoke some kind of seriousness and depth, but this one seems most honest. Ridiculous. Stylish, action-packed, star-studded ridiculousness, and as long as it's fun -- which seems a promising possibility -- I'm on board for the adventure! Seriously, this is the style of movie that Kong was meant for.




Beauty and the Beast
Mar 17th, PG
Full disclosure: I still think the animation of the Beast's face looks bad. Like, I'm worried about how much of a distraction it'll be bad. Otherwise, I'm excited this live action version of the story. Emma Watson looks good; Dan Stevens will hopefully be worth casting for the little time his face will be on screen; and I can already sense that Luke Evan's Gaston will the scene-stealing favorite. There's a part of me that doubts the film will be able to match the latest Cinderella's grand perfection, but as long as it can recapture even a spark of the magic of the original -- which I think it has based on the trailer -- everything should be great.




The Belko Experiment
Mar 17th, R
Normally this is the kind of movie where I'd look at the trailer, scoff pleasantly, move along, and watch it on TV three years later. However, this one was co-written by James Gunn, and that brings a lot of interest. Especially after I heard that the film has a lot of comedy (which you can't tell from this trailer) plus a cast full of familiar faces including John Gallagher Jr. in the apparent lead, and Sean Gunn and Michael Rooker. So I still might not see it until it hits the TV, or who knows. But now it's on my list.




Power Rangers
Mar 24th, PG-13
Tee-hee. I feel a little bit silly for including this one, especially since I can't claim nostalgia, having never watched the TV show, but I dunno, it looks fun. Cheesy, cliched, and probably too young for me, but fun. There's just something classically appealing about actioners like this, that don't feel the need to take risks and break new ground but to just do what works. Or maybe what doesn't work because this has all the earmarks of a movie with a good first act, a crumbling second act, and a distracted, directionless third that ruins everything. If that's not the case, I'll probably watch it. But to be honest, I'll probably watch it anyway.




Life
Mar 24th, NR
What, Christmas already? I love space travel movies; space travel movies that are subtly science fiction, using science to speculate into the near future, and most importantly space scifi movies where everything steadily plummets into crazy, terrifying horror. Yep, it appears to be Christmas. This one stars Ryan Reynolds, the lovely Rebecca Ferguson, Jake Gyllenhaal, and Hirouki Sanada (of Sunshine, a favorite of the sub-genre). It's not rated yet so we'll see about that, but I have high hopes. Very, very, extraterrestrially high.




Ghost in the Shell
Mar 31st, NR
This one definitely rides on what the rating ends up being. If it's appropriate enough, I'll be very interested, mainly just for the world-building aspect, which looks crazy and extremely unique -- although I suppose it isn't so much for people who watched the anime. Scarlett Johansson stars. It looks very stylish and not a little creepy.





The Zookeeper's Wife
Mar 31st, PG-13
A war drama rounds out the genres of the month. This one stars Jessica Chastain and tells the true story of the proprietor of a Polish zoo and his wife in 1939 who harbor Jews in the zoo and their home as Poland is invaded by Nazis. Daniel Bruhl also stars as the main villain. Jessica Chastain is the main appeal with this for me, but the unique and true aspects of it also seem to indicate an interesting historic film. Keeping an eye on this one.




Iron Fist
Premieres Mar 17th on Netflix
As great as this month looks movie-wise, there is nothing I am more excited for than Iron Fist. I have not been this excited for a Netflix Marvel show since the first season of Daredevil. I have high hopes, but not quite as much confidence. I know the potential is there, but if they are just getting this out there so the Defenders can happen things might not be as great as they should be. I will be very upset if that happens, because with what I can see of the characters and the premise, this show could be a new favorite of mine easily. I've got a lot riding on this -- don't let me down, Marvel!

Take Shelter

Spoiler-free.

Jeff Nichols' second film, but the last one I saw of his four to date, cinches this writer/director's spot at the top of my favorites list, with a masterfully crafted, intimate look at fear and anxiety. The film stars and focuses on Michael Shannon as Curtis, a husband and father who begins to have vivid nightmares that seem to warn of an approaching storm. He feels that he must prepare for this storm, but also worries that it might all just be in his head.

A slow-burning, thrilling drama with a very rewarding payoff for patient viewers.

This film isn't personally my favorite of Nichols' work (the scale has a very narrow margin) but I do think it is his most precisely crafted film (another narrow margin). It's very focused and intent, and doesn't say a whole lot, but what it does say it says in a very affecting and moving manner. Going in, even with avoiding spoilers, I had a preconceived idea of where the film would go; and it did follow that for a while, but then it went beyond it in an unexpected very rewarding way.

All of Nichols' other films so far (Shotgun Stories, Mud, and Midnight Special) have had endings that required thought to know if I really liked them. But, with Take Shelter, I didn't need to think to know I loved it. It was immediately, intensely satisfying, especially considering the stressful drama it followed. But at the same time, I haven't done any less meditating on it. His other movies could have had slightly different endings and I probably would have still liked them, but Take Shelter's ending is the main quality that won me over. The whole film hinged on that powerful ending. It left one or two plot points open to interpretation by ending exactly when the story was completed emotionally. So it feels as resolved as any film can, but still leaves you thinking.

Nails the open ending shut with the best of them.

As he did before, did after, and will likely do again, Michael Shannon does a phenomenal job leading the film. His screen presence is something legendary, and he lines up with the film's tone and pace with matchless precision. Jessica Chastain impressively never lets him overshadow her. This is probably partly a credit to the writing as well, as Samantha is Nichols' largest female character yet, and is very well-written, but Chastain takes charge with her and holds her own against the powerhouse of Shannon.

Take Shelter focuses on character drama, but had one very impressively ticked mark on the technical side as well: the special effects. And because the film is very realistic with its general appearance and dialogue, the effects -- which were minimal and carefully done on a small budget -- come off in a spectacular way. I was beyond impressed with the scene where all the furniture in the room suddenly jumps into the air and floats there. It not the sort of thing you'd expect to see in a low-budget indie, let alone at the level of realism it reached. The quality was so high, I thought it might have been a practical effect at first. The effects were the final push that brought this film to the intense peak it needed to go to.

An all-around exceptionally well-done film.

I won't say much more. Partly because I don't want to explain too much of this film, and partly because I've really explained enough. This is a very simple film without a lot floating around in it, but it feels very big. It goes deep, and its depth is displayed visually, with assured grandeur, not just put into the plot and performances -- as commendable as those elements are. It's like an independent event movie; a profoundly rewarding experience to see, and to feel, and to understand.

Upcoming Movie Roundup - April

Last month I surprised myself, and saw a movie in theaters that I didn't even include in my March roundup. I was planning to mention 10 Cloverfield Lane, but decided against it just as I was about to watch the trailer, because I realized I didn't have anything to say about it. I didn't know anything about it, and didn't want to -- I didn't even want to see the trailer -- I just had an interest in seeing the movie. So one night I was like, "Hey guys, wanna watch Cloverfield?" and my brothers were like, "Sure." So we did. And once it was over I was like, "Should we go see 10 Cloverfield Lane tomorrow?" and they were like, "Heck yes." So we did. And you can read my spoiler-free review of it here, but honestly you shouldn't unless you've seen it already. I'll just say that it's the kind of movie that reminds me of why I love movies in the first place. So I guess I should have mentioned it, but at the same time, I'm glad I didn't -- and didn't look into it too much.

Usually looking through the new releases of the month introduces me to a few lesser known releases that pique my interest, but not so much this time. And the bigger releases aren't hugely exciting either. You never know, but right now it looks like I may be saving my money for Civil War!

My thoughts on one of these is not true -- for April Fool's Day -- guess which one?


Hardcore Henry
April 8th: R
It stars my personal favorite Sharlto Copley, it's exclusively shot from first person perspective, and it's currently getting lots of praise for it's unique and fun non-stop and innovative action and impressively involving plot line. It is the only movie on this list that I'm currently planning to see, but the only problem is that the rating is too much for me. So I'll wait until I can watch it cut, when I plan to enjoy the heck out of it!




High Strung
April 8th: PG
About a ballet dancer and a violin player who "don't fit in" and go up against the odds, this looks like a nice, appropriate dancing movie with a slight music-twist that will be very appealing to fans of the genre. It looks predictable, a little sentimental, and not terribly deep, but hey -- that's the way these kinds of film's work best.




The Jungle Book
April 15th: PG
The new, live action Jungle Book. Well, so far it's been a lot of showmanship. It's got a good-looking cast, and obviously takes much pride in the appearance of its realistically animated jungle animals. (Am I the only one wondering why they're so disproportionately large jungle animals though?) This trailer shows that the film seems to actually have a plot, and there's a lot of hype, but I still need to be convinced that it's gonna be, you know, a good movie.




The Green Room
April 15th; R
"Strong brutal graphic violence" the rating explanation says. I've never seen a violence rating look so foreboding before! Anyway this one's a horror film staring Patrick Stewart as the villain, and among others, Anton Yelchin and Imogen Poots as his victims. I like Anton Yelchin a lot, but this one looks too scary for me. I'm not pulled that far into the horror genre! It's getting high reviews though, so it looks like a hit for those who are...




Paradox
April 15th(limited); NR
A murder mystery with time travel? Sounds like my kind of mash-up. There's not much to find out about this film (it doesn't even have a rating yet) and it doesn't have to look of a really great film, but if it delivers on the promises it makes in the trailer and is decent enough, and can definitely see myself watching it someday.




The Huntsman: Winter's War
April 22nd; PG-13
Uuuuuhhh. Well, at least there's no Kristen Stewart! That means it has to be better than the other one, right? Honestly this prequel to Snow White and the Huntsman does look better. It focuses on more interesting characters and doesn't have the pretense of following a fairy tale. Of course since it's a prequel, we know more or less how it will end -- with the villain undefeated -- which will probably be unsatisfying. Anyway, even if it is better, that by no means guarantees it'll be good.



APRIL FOOL! I lied about lying about one of the movies. I know. I'm such an evil April Fools genius. Or I'm just lazy. One of those. Happy April Fools Day everyone! Don't write with strange pens and be sure to check under your seat cushions!

Interstellar

Some Spoilers within.

Crops on Earth are dying. Corn is the last one to survive, and only a matter of years away from meeting the same fate. And then it'll be humanity's turn. But NASA has been working in secret on a way to save the humans. When a black hole opened up in space near Saturn, they saw their chance and took it -- sending astronauts in to explore the planets in the new galaxy, in the hopes that they'll find a habitable one.

Through a series of strange events, Cooper, a pilot-turned-farmer discovers NASA's secret headquarters. There he is told the truth about Earth's impending demise and is recruited to lead one last mission into the black hole -- to visit the three planets where the surviving astronauts are sending out signals indicating that the planet is potentially habitable. Knowing that the mission would take many years, Cooper doesn't want to leave his two children behind, but takes the job anyway, to save them.

Ladies and gentlemen; 3001: A Space Odyssey.

Never mind if it's enjoyable; never mind if it's entertaining; the biggest issue and controversy surrounding Christopher Nolan's latest blockbuster epic is whether or not it's scientifically viable. I started out without any specific explanations of the science behind this movie, but I had heard about relative time in space travel, and I know all about paradoxes too... because Doctor Who. So the parts in the film that had to do with space travel -- the black hole, the time differences, the technical aspects -- made sense to me as the film explained them. It would be a whole other issue if the story was being sold as a true story, but it's science fiction, so making sense within its own explanation is all I require to give a stamp of approval.

The previously mentioned aspects I can see the more involved (read: geeky) fans debating over, about potential holes, or whether or not the science is applicable in reality, but a lot of the less science-y events made we wonder how far people's claims of this film's incredible accuracy actually goes. Are people swallowing that the Earth will eventually die via the natural extinction of plants? That humans will eventually evolve to be able to see and manipulate time? I love a good bootstrap paradox in my entertainment, but that involves literal time travel (not just space travel "time travel"), backwards time travel, and that, as fun as it is to enjoy in a film, is a little silly to call scientifically accurate.

Short answer: no; it's not scientifically accurate. Proof? Bookcases.

Now that I've dealt with that, on to whether or not Interstellar is enjoyable and entertaining -- an underrated point that I put a lot of importance on when evaluating entertainment. And this is actually a pretty unique case. Usually in a big blockbuster I have a backup for if the plot fails to engage and impress; the cast. Usually there's at least one actor or character present that I can turn my attention to. This movie, not so much. It has a huge cast, but isn't made up of many actors that I'm automatically biased towards. Plus Matthew McConaughey was the only constant character, and I'm neutral towards him. I didn't find much to connect with Cooper on, except that I really did appreciate his extreme will to survive because of his love for his children (child, really). Only, that came from the script.

Anne Hathaway I actually dislike generally, and her character being so dramatically sentimental and inept (she was probably a descendant of Gravity's Ryan Stone) didn't help one bit. She killed my favorite character, Wes Bentley, who died predictably early. Then all I had to look forward to was Matt Damon's appearance, which ended in surprise when Mann turned out to be a coward and a villain. And while I'm on the subject, can I just ask; why did Mann want to kill Cooper and the others? I mean, they all wanted to leave. I just can't see what he thought it would help. If you have an idea about that I'd love to hear it. The only possibility I see is that he was just plain crazy. Cooper's daughter Murph was best when being played by Jessica Chastain, who handled the potentially annoying characteristics of the character much better than the younger portrayal. As for the son, Tom, he was set up for development as the younger, but once he grew into Casey Affleck, no use was made of it. I was sad for him though because Cooper never seemed to care one iota about him compared with Murph. Michael Caine was around, which was a good thing, and so was Topher Grace all of a sudden, and I spent a lot of time wondering where he came from... and who he was.

Woman, please, pull yourself together.

So since the entertainment "backup" of the cast was so slight and so often absent, I had to almost solely rely on the entertaining elements of the plot to involve and impress me. On that score the film skews toward to positive side. The movie was overlong in my opinion, but it was able to keep me interested while waiting for the cool things to happen. When the cool things did happen they weren't so exciting as to change the tone which helped. If they had been, the slow parts in between would have been more boring by comparison, and since there was more time spent in the in between, that wouldn't have been good.

Visually, the movie was pretty fantastic, with consistently great cinematography, even during the scenes that weren't really going for the "wow" factor. Hoyte Van Hoytema is cinematographer instead of Nolan's usual Wally Pfister, and he gives the movie a fresh look, but it still maintains that Chris Nolan flavor too. You know what I mean. In the big "wow" scenes the effects live up to the hype and the vision they are portraying. Even if there isn't much to see that the trailer didn't show us. The most memorable part of the whole film is how creatively beautiful it is.

Here's something I don't usually mention: the score. Typically, unless they're particularly good or particularly bad, they don't stand out to me. Well this one stands out. In a particularly bad way. I suppose I should give Nolan and Hans Zimmer credit for attempting something bold, but for me it wound up being mostly ineffective, almost always distracting and nerve-grating, and often way too loud, covering up dialogue. In fact, the sound in this movie was just the pits. Characters would mumble and whisper, barely audible, and then five minutes later would scream their heads off with no evidence of dampening. I spent the whole movie adjusting the volume. I don't care what realistic, dramatic, or edgy effect you're going for; if it causes your viewers to rewind to hear a line right before blowing their eardrums out, it's a bad idea.

Usually we take a film's sound for granted; here it's the biggest downfall. Such a little thing...

I would have liked the characters if they'd been played by different actors; I may have liked the actors if their characters were better written. The science would have impressed me more if not for random gaps in logic, and everything that happens after Cooper goes into a black hole the second time. But, the big twist would have been cooler if it didn't take itself so seriously. The big twist also would have been less predictable if less time had been spent hinting at it... And I would probably want to see it again -- if I didn't have to sit through it all again.

A little too ambitious for its own good, Interstellar never settles on what it wants to be. It winds up in an awkward middle ground of incomplete brilliant ideas and deeply thoughtful hogwash. It's too serious and focused on the theories and the science to be thoroughly entertaining as a sci-fi space adventure; too out there and theatrical with its elaborate fiction to be taken seriously for its theories and science. A grand and beautiful mess.

The Martian

Mild Spoilers.

Six astronauts are sent to Mars for the Ares 3 mission -- Melissa Lewis (Jessica Chastain), Alex Vogel (Aksel Hennie) Chris Beck (Sebastian Stan), Rick Martinez (Michael Peña), Beth Johanssen (Kate Mara) and Mark Watney (Matt Damon). Their mission on Mars was supposed to last 31 sols (Mars days), but on the 18th sol, a huge storm blows in, forcing them to abort their mission. During their escape, they lose one of their men; the lowest ranking, the botanist, Mark Watney.

In any other space movie, this would just be the first casualty of probably many (with six people, you have plenty to spare) but this cheeky lighthearted botanist doesn't get the memo: he wakes up on Mars, alone, with an antennae stuck in his gut, and decides that he's going to live. On Mars. With limited food. In a Hab meant to last 31 days. For 4 years. Until the next Ares mission will come, and he can hitch a ride home. How? Science.

The coolest interplanetary scientist on the planet.

Okay, I just have to say one thing before I can fully concentrate on this movie: The book was better. And once you finish reading this review you'll know that I say that only to emphasize how remarkably, incredibly amazing the book is, not to say that this movie is in any way lacking. Because it's not. Anyway, with books, you can't include an awesome soundtrack!

This story's greatness comes mainly from its stranded hero, Mark Watney. In spite of his nearly hopeless situation, he stays optimistic, and works determinedly to solve the daunting problems in his way with a cheerful attitude. This creates a lot more humor than one would really expect out of a space survival movie, and Matt Damon is the ideal person to play this endearing every-man and unconventional hero. The ability to become a person who can crack a joke while losing a staring contest with death isn't really definable by what one would normally call "talent" -- it's a quality that you either have, or you don't. Well, Matt has it.

He's the same from beginning to end, never going through a "heroic journey" or any character change at all. It's unusual. I love it.

Damon fills the personality of the lonely Martian comic perfectly, and then puts his talented efforts into portraying the serious and intense drama realistically. Charm isn't something that Damon's characters ever really lack, so it's no surprise Watney has that, but the level of vulnerability we see in him is less expected. If you don't absolutely adore this character after the first 30 minutes, you have a heart of stone. Rooting for a hero with complete abandon has never been so effortless and inviting.
 
He may be the lone man on Mars, but he is certainly not alone in the movie. The rest of the crew mentioned above all have their part and do their share. Particularly outstanding is Chastain as the ship's commander. She gives a deep and elegant performance. I also just really love Michael Peña. He always keeps thing up-beat and interesting. I wished to see more of Stan's doctor Beck, but when you're the strong and silent type, that just how it goes. Hennie's German scientist keeps up with the bigger names easily, and Mara hits the mark for the geeky and kinda weird cute girl.

You're awesome, you're awesome... you're ALL awesome!! Sadly Michael Peña is absent in this photo. Michael, you're awesome.

On Earth we have another cast, and another story line, as NASA does their part to bring Watney home alive as well. There, we have Jeff Daniels as the head of NASA, Chiwetel Ejiofor as the head of the Mars missions, Sean Bean as the Ares flight director, Kristen Wiig as NASA's media relations, plus Donald Glover, and Mackenzie Davis. These guys almost split their screen time with Damon, and while none of them come close to having the captivating charm of his Watney, they all do a great and commendable job. Standouts here are Ejiofor, who comes across effortlessly, and controls the screen while he's on it, and Glover who's just... unexpected.

And you, sir, are a steely-eyed missile man.

Fact: space movies are better with a soundtrack from the 70's. This movie uses that knowledge to full advantage, by including several musical working-montages, that are, to be perfectly blunt, epic. This really is the one thing the movie could do that the book couldn't, and it was beautiful, and sometimes very funny, and beautiful. In fact this whole story is a balance of beautiful and funny. The comedy comes too often and is way too unique and funny to be classified as just comic relief, and in the hands of Ridley Scott, the look of the film is consistently breathtakingly gorgeous, and beautifully foreboding. It gets every bit as edge-of-your-seat intense and despairingly emotional as you'd expect from such a hardcore survival adventure, but remembers to give us plenty of relief too -- via wit and fun and grandeur and many glorious moments of triumph against the odds.

Starman, waiting in the sky....

Adaption-wise, there was a lot that was word-for-word the same, and there were some changes; some that I expected and some that I didn't. But, the reason why I love this story so wholeheartedly is not because of the events that take place, and in the end, even the few bigger changes made no real difference because the heart of the film stayed exactly the same. This story focuses on sincerely connecting with its audience, giving us a straightforward story full of simple truths and raw honesty, instead of coolly trying to impress us with cheap, contrived, and empty parlor tricks.

I was wowed by the visual feats and impressed by the practiced, involving film-making. I had tons of fun listening to the musical montages and Watney make sarcastic quips with all that Matt Damon charm. And the fact that most of the film is scientifically viable is endlessly impressive. Those things all make a good, enjoyable movie, but this achieved greater heights than that. I don't abandon my cynicism and reserve while watching movies lightly, but here I willingly fell head over heels, because I found something that was worthy of investing my cares in. A genuine, everyday, unlikely fictional hero set in a story that is designed to sincerely engage and inspire us through him.

The all natural, organic, Martian-grown potato farmer.

The Martian resonates because of a striking harmony of simple, but powerful details. Mark Watney is a good guy, put into a near-impossible situation. Totally alone, he scrapes and fights with an uncrushable spirit. He may feel it, but he's not truly alone; on Earth, complete strangers pitch in valuable time and resources to his desperate cause. And Watney's crew all happily risk their lives for him. The fact that this story is technically science fiction, set on Mars, using real science theoretically in order to create a realistic backdrop, is just that; a really, really, really neat and fantastic backdrop. The core of the story itself as real as it gets; affirming the inexhaustible value and wonder of human life.

On Mars. To the tune of David Bowie. And ABBA. With science!

Upcoming Movie Roundup - October

Last month went as expected, with a trip to the theater to see The Scorch Trials, which I thoroughly, thoroughly enjoyed, and Before We Go from the comfort of the TV room sofa. October has one huge must-see that I've been waiting for rather desperately for the past two weeks or so, and a couple promising others that may be a good DVD watch sometime. But first things, first...


The Martian
Oct 2nd: PG-13
So much yes. So much. I'm really surprised at myself for how incredibly excited I am for this movie. It's the first movie whose anticipation has actually made me forget about Star Wars 7. Even Rogue Nation only made me temporarily forget after I'd seen it. I wrote a whole post about my high anticipation and expectation levels that you can read here -- but here's the short version: Matt Damon is Mark Watney, an Ares astronaut, who, through an unfortunate series of events is stranded alone on Mars without his crew (Jessica Chastain, Michael Pena, Sebastian Stan, Kate Mara, and Aksel Hennie), without communication, and with food and supplies meant only to last 31 days; he must use his smarts (and real science) to survive. The cast also includes Chiwetel Ejiofor, Sean Bean, and Kristen Wiig. The book was brilliantly smart and thrilling, and the Ridley Scott film promises to be faithful adaptation, and a compelling science-fiction-meets-science-fact adventure. Can. Not. Wait.




Pan
Oct 9th: PG
It looks like a cute, fun, adventurous remake of Peter Pan, and the origin story gives good opportunity to get creative with the story as well. Early reviews coming in are not nearly as positive as I would like, and are turning me off from wanting to see it in theaters, but they're not quite bad enough to keep me from wanting to see it altogether. I just have to see Hugh Jackman being the film's villain Blackbeard, and Garrett Hedlund as the young, not-yet-Captain Hook -- minus the hook (we'll for how long!) I guess I just won't expect too much out of it.




Crimson Peak
Oct 16th: R
If I watched horror movies. I don't, (certainly not this kind) and don't think I could -- even for Tom Hiddleston and Jessica Chastain and Mia Wasikowska -- but this one looks like a real quality horror movie, which is the only kind that ever tempts me in the slightest. And it has such an elegant, beautiful style... but then is so disturbingly creepy. If I watched horror movies... Here's the trailer, but don't watch it -- cause it's scary. :P




Goosebumps
Oct 16th; PG
Okay, I never read any of these books as a kid (perhaps that had something to do with my aversion to horror movies now?) so I don't have any sentimental attachment to this movie, but for some reason I still have a nice, mild interest in this. Of course it looks totally silly and cheesy, but sometimes when it's done right those things can make a movie really fun to just enjoy and laugh at and not really think about. And you need a movie like that every once in a while. Jack Black and Dylan Minnette star.




Bridge of Spies
Oct 16th: PG-13
Steven Spielberg's Cold War drama starring Tom Hanks. So the chances of this being a well-made film are pretty much %100. And well-acted. And well-scored. And dramatic. So this one's really a no-brainer, but I don't currently have any real interest. I love Spielberg's movies, and period dramas are great, and Tom Hanks promises to be as great as ever, but I'm just not too excited about this being more of a political drama war-movie, instead of an more action-centered war-movie. The trailer does show some bits of action, but nothing really big. So I'll just have to wait and see if it really is a straight drama, and if it is, just wait until a war drama is what I want to see!




Suffragette 
Oct 23rd(limited); PG-13
Okay, so this movie looks well-made and everything, plus it has a great cast including Carey Mulligan, Meryl Streep, and Helena Bonham Carter, but honestly, it looks like it's absolutely nothing more than propaganda for extreme modern feminism, and that just completely ruins it for me.




Burnt
Oct 23rd(limited); NR
A Bradley Cooper chef movie! This one has quite the supporting cast too -- Sienna Miller, Alicia Vikander, Lily James, Emma Thompson, Daniel Bruhl... It says it's a dramedy, but from the trailer it looks more like pure drama. Still, it's about cooking, and stars Bradly Cooper. It's one of those "wait and see" cases I suppose.



What are your movie plans for this fall month? Tell me in the comments!

Anticipating The Martian

Okay, so I'll admit: the first time I saw the trailer for The Martian, I wasn't too impressed. It looked to me to be another Gravity which I consider to be one of the most annoying, contrived, grossly overrated movies of all time. I am not exaggerating. Read my review if you doubt me.

Fortunately, The Martian had just enough publicity going on around it to not let me forget about it, and eventually I discovered that it was based on a book. (Written by Andy Weir.) That changed my first judgment because I seriously doubted that anyone could write a book as bad as Gravity, and then even if they did no one would want to make it a movie. I found recommendations for the novel, saying that it was good, that it was gripping, and that it was realistic. I believe it was the last bit that sealed the deal for me. I bought the book at my first opportunity, and immediately... held on to it for two and a half weeks. I had just started another book, and I can't read two books at once. I hurried through the other book way faster than I would have otherwise, and very often glanced longingly at the striking orange cover of The Martian as it sat on the corner of my desk.

It surprised me how much I had flip-flopped. One day I wasn't even interested enough in the movie to think that I might want to see it in theaters, the next I was too anxious to know how the story went to even wait for the movie's release. But it really is simple: I decided that I wanted to be interested, and then I was. I gave my capacity for anticipation full range, and it ran wild. After buying the book I avoided spoilers from the movie like the plague, so I could enjoy the novel's twists as much as possible. And after I finally finished the 10-hour-read, The Romance of the Forest, I gave myself a few days off to cleanse my reading-palate (it's a thing) and then got started. I should have waited longer, because I finished in four days (it was 8 1/2 hours of reading time) and now I'm dying to see this movie that is releasing a week from today. I might not last that long.

I wanted to take all -- or at least most -- of the eleven days I gave myself to read so I could take my time and savor it, but as it goes with gripping books, I really just couldn't put it down. I when I had to I just spent all my time thinking about it, and gushing to my (annoyingly only-mildly-interested) family.

I won't go into spoilery details, but the book was downright incredible. I've never read anything like it. First of all it had more profanity in it than all the other books I've ever read combined (though that's really not a hard feat) but I was able to forgive that easily. Probably because of how realistic it was. Oh my goodness, it was so realistic. Math, physics, electronics, etc, etc, were all thoroughly explained. I admit I didn't understand some of it, but it all made sense, if you know what I mean. Besides that, it was extremely well-written with a very unique style, great humor and a great sense of action and excitement. And it was full of many, many, fantastic characters, which I didn't expect with it being about one man alone on Mars. I loved every second of the 8 hours and 30 mins it took me to get to the end.

And now it's movie time. I remembered from the trailer that Matt Damon was in the lead as Mark Watney, and also that Jessica Chastain and Michael Pena were in the cast. It was easy enough to guess who they were playing (and they absolutely perfect fyi). But I just looked at the whole cast list and who everyone is playing, and with each name I got more and more excited: "Chiwetel Ejiofor? Perfect. Jeff Daniels? Alright! Kate Mara? Right, totally! Kristen Wiig? Ohhh, yes! Wait a minute, Sean Bean???? YES! He's exactly Sean Bean! And what? Sebastian Stan? Did that say Sebastian Stan?!?!? OH MY GOSH THIS CAST IS AMAZING!"

And, also, you know.... Ridley Scott is directing.

I adored this book. It is currently my favorite book, though once my excitement over it settles it'll likely land at number two. And today marks the beginning of my week-long wait to see it in movie format. I'll try not to get my hopes up too high. I'm sure they'll have to at least leave some things out, after all. But if I'm honest with myself, my hopes and expectations have already gathered up all my excitement into a huge rocket and blasted off toward the skies. Mars, here I come.

The Martian opens on Oct. 2nd, and currently sits at a very promising 93% on Rotten Tomatoes!

Have you read The Martian? Are you planning on seeing the movie? How excited for it are you, and what are you expecting? Let me know in the comments!