Wow, March already. February went a little crazy with my expectations. First I saw Velvet Buzzsaw even though I was on the fence about it. I decided it didn't look too scary and went for it -- and now it's my current favorite movie of the year! It was devilishly funny and smart and I read a lot into the themes that I adored. And the horror was perfect for me: not too scary but very cool. (Read my review here!)
The next unexpected thing was that I actually went to the theater to see Alita: Battle Angel, and I'm so glad I did. I fell in love with it. The world was every bit as cool as I wanted and Alita herself was magical. I said I thought she looked inexpressive in the trailer, but in the movie, she was perfect. Wonderfully animated, acted, and written! (Review here!)
I didn't go see The Lego Movie 2 though, even though I thought that was a sure thing. And last night I streamed The Man Who Killed Hitler and Then the Bigfoot. It surprised me the least but that was probably because I was expecting good things. So I should get a review for it out soon.
March movies always seems to have a lot of promise to me. It's like the wild-card month, where the best and the worst movies of the year are mingled together and you have to sort out which is which. What looks good you y'all?
Captain Marvel
Mar 8th; PG-13
Here's an opening statement for you: I'm actually kinda excited for this movie. About as excited as I was for Spider-Man: Homecoming anyway, which is definitely more excited than I usually am for MCU installments. Usually, I dread them. Still, the push-back and push-back-on-push-back over this movie is ridiculous. I wish everyone would chill, because if this movie sucks, guaranteed it's going to be for the exact same reason that every recent Marvel movie has sucked. Anyway I'm still looking forward to it because I've always enjoyed Larson's acting, it's set in the 90's and supposedly has an appropriate soundtrack, is a space-y movie, and Ben Mendelsohn is the bad guy. What's not to like? Well, there's all the Marvel stuff that I'm sick and tired of... but I'm giving it a fair chance.
The Kid
Mar 8th; R
Chris Pratt plays a bad guy in this. Like, a seriously, really bad, bad guy. So I'm sold on that alone, I've always wanted to know if he has chops to play against type. Very interested. Then approach it from another angle: Ethan Hawke western movie. Sold all over again! It's directed by Vincent D'Onofrio, and all those guys were in The Magnificent Seven remake together. I can just see them sitting around on set and planning this movie -- though logic doubts that happened. Throw in Dane DeHaan and a more R-rated, gritty tone, and I've lost count of how many times I'm sold. At this point I'm basically sure that I'll be hitting the theaters for it if I can. It kinda snuck up on me, and suddenly I'm eager to see it! The music usage in this trailer is seriously on point.
I'm Not Here
Mar 8th(limited); NR
One of those actor movies. It's got J.K. Simmons and Sebastian Stan and Maika Monroe, and the plot looks, well, I can't even remember at this point and I only watched the trailer a few hours ago. It looks boring but well-acted. I dunno, I'd consider watching if it came to a steaming service near me.
Triple Frontier
Mar 13th; R
It's a Netflix movie, so, basically... I'll watch it. I don't even really need to know anything about it. I know it'll be there, it has an appealing cast of Oscar Isaac, Ben Affleck, Charlie Hunnam (who I like now for some magical reason???) Garrett Hedlund and Pedro Pascal, and that's all Netflix needs to attract me. The plot is one of those situations though where it's so clearly a bad idea yet the characters go for it anyway, so unless the movie itself makes it make more sense why they'd all agree to that plan -- it may ruin the whole thing even if the action is cool.
Starfish
Mar 13(limited); NR
Streaming May 28th, but I guess I'll put in here, so I can remember it once May rolls around. She's ostensibly the last person on earth and find a tape left for her by a friend, with clues on how to... solve something? Save the world? The movie looks pretty crazy but it's probably mostly a cerebral thing. Still, could be cool.
Five Feet Apart
Mar 15th; PG-13
I'd be kidding myself if I didn't include this one. I don't think I've ever seen a Sprouse brother act before. I never watched The Suite Life of Zack and Cody, but I've always known who they were because I was a part of a Narnia fan forum back in the day where people would regularly fan-cast them as the twins in The Horse and His Boy. That's a rabbit trail but the point is this is a cute dumb teen melodrama that's trying to bank off The Fault in Our Stars 5 years after the fact and I will probably watch it the absolute second its available for free because why the heck not? It also has the best friend girl from Edge of Seventeen, which I just watched the other day. So that's cool.
Captive State
Mar 15th(limited); PG-13
This looks like it could be absolutely awesome. I'm always down for a nice hardcore scifi movie and this alien takeover plot could definitely do the trick. It's like 1984 or something but with extraterrestrials. John Goodman is there, Vera Farminga, and it looks like the main character is Ashton Sanders, who I've not seen in anything yet, but he was the middle version of the protagonist in Moonlight so I expect he can do that acting thing. The only thing I'm not sure about is, it's proudly by the director of Rise of the Planet of the Apes, and... I did not like that movie. So if this follows it's footsteps too closely I can imagine it getting all the potential joy sucked out of it. Probably worth the risk though I'd say.
The Aftermath
Mar 15th(limited); R
Ugh, I dunno about this one, I'm on the fence about even including it in this post. Fox Searchlight seems to do a good job consistently picking up good movies, but even the appeal of hearing Alexander Skarsgård speak German doesn't seem worth sitting through a movie with this kind of frustrating "romance" plot, starring Keira Knightley.
The Mustang
Mar 15th(limited); R
This is different. Also, it's a horse movie. Last year, when a horse movie came out in March it wound up being my favorite movie of the whole year! That probably won't happen again, but this does have the same sort of simple, small and intimate tone. The reforming inmate and his horse. It looks good, it seriously does. Matthias Schoenaerts stars.
Us
Mar 22nd; R
I'm so scared of this movie, I can't even watch the trailer again. How in the world can I possibly watch the actual movie?!? Last time a trailer was too scary and I somehow got myself to watch the movie anyway I regretted it a bit. More than a bit. Ugh, it looks great, it looks terrible -- I think I'll leave it to the professionals for now. Maybe I'll ease into it and see Get Out first anyway. Same director. And if I like and can handle that, then we'll see.
Triple Threat
Mar 22nd; R
And it's streaming same day. Never not watch Iko Uwais movies -- ever since I finally buckled down and watched The Raid. I don't even need to see the trailer. Don't even need to know the plot. The action in this guy's movies are everything they need, and everything else is just a plus!
Dumbo
Mar 29th; PG
Disney's first live-action remake of the year, and the one getting the least flack. Certainly from me and here's why: It appears to be the least of a shot-for-shot remake of the three. It's got added characters and a seriously expanded plot. Human characters, and new human characters that aren't desperately trying to look like iconic animated characters. I also recently realized that I kinda enjoy Colin Farrell now (I think it was In Bruges that did me in) and he and his kids seem to be even more the leads than Dumbo himself. Ostensibly, they're changing it enough so it can be a worthwhile story in its own right. I'm surprised at how okay and hesitantly on board with this movie I am. They may reveal how they've ruined it soon enough, but as it stands I'm rather curious. Also Michael Keaton is the bad guy? Sounds good, solid plan.
Showing posts with label John Goodman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Goodman. Show all posts
Friday, March 1, 2019
Saturday, March 11, 2017
Kong: Skull Island
Kong is back, and literally bigger than ever. It's the 1970's, so you know the music is good, and the group of explorers, scientists, and soldiers that go to Skull Island is extra, extra large -- full of red shirts, and people who don't need to survive to the end of the movie. Mayhem is in the air. And it smells delicious.
The movie is directed by Jordan Vogt-Roberts, a name I didn't recognize at first, but his style I did. He directed The Kings of Summer, a movie that most are less likely to have seen than Kong, but a great movie with a love for nature and an eye for stylish macro shots. That style translates magnificently to this film, and is enhanced to epic proportions. As the steadily dwindling group explores the island we get to explore it too, through the camera's wondering eye. The beauty and the creativity is not what you conventionally see in a monster flick, but with how well it works you'd think it would be.
Vogt-Roberts did not hold back on any visual aspect of the movie -- any. The location shooting and the attention to detail for the era made it almost impossible for me to shake the feeling that I was actually watching a movie from the 70's -- an unexpected but welcome feeling. Of course the special effects were miles better than anything 40 years old could give us, and in fact were a good distance better than what most CGI-heavy flicks crank out these days too. This movie was made to be a visual feast of epic entertainment, and there was no skimping on achieving that goal.
I only have one question: how did they manage to collect this cast? A bunch of them hail from (or will soon join) Marvel movies -- Tom Hiddleston is the cool-and-collected tracker-for-hire, Brie Larson is the spirited war photographer, Samuel L. Jackson is the squad leader, John C. Reilly is oddball scene-stealing highlight of the whole movie, and Shea Whigham, and Toby Kebbell (yes I'm counting Fant4stic) are soldiers. (Kebbell also provided some facial mo-cap for Kong, though the vast majority of Kong was Terry Notary.) Otherwise, there's John Goodman as the expedition instigator, and his scientist colleges Corey Hawkins and Tian Jing. Jason Mitchell and Thomas Mann round out the soldiers with memorable roles. I said it was a big cast! And that's just the people who, if they die, you feel sad for.
The deaths are pretty sad too, in spite of the overwhelmingly fun tone of the film; or maybe because of it, with dramatic contrast. The characters were defined well by all having their little niche or quirk which made them memorable, but they were also underdeveloped in the classic action flick way. It seemed particularly as though Hiddleston and Larson's characters were purposefully being held back -- saving the development for sequels perhaps. Still, they were effortlessly charming together. I was on board with this film since Tom was announced to star, and he didn't let me down.
John C. Reilly stole the whole movie of course, was hilarious and simultaneously the backbone of the film's heart, which yes, it did have plenty of for its genre. Another who unexpectedly left a big impression was Toby Kebbell's human role. I've always been interested in his work but was so far unable to properly appreciate it due to disappointing role choices and lots of motion capture parts. Because of how expressive he is, he's great at mo-cap, but that means that without the CGI translation he's even better -- and here he is finally a live-action, well-written, sympathetic character, and thus he has finally turned my head. And he was the only character whose name I learned!
In my favorite scene he comes across Kong at a lake and watches the giant ape take a drink -- the excess water sounding like a waterfall as it pours back into the lake -- and then battle a giant lake-squid and eat it in a humorous manner. And that pretty much sums up the whole movie for me. It's odd, ridiculous, epic and funny, with realistic attention to detail, and there's a bunch of faces in the background who look really good under a macro lens.
There were a few aspects that could have been improved without creating an imbalance. The ending was a bit sudden and messy, character's names are nice to know, and whenever the plot strayed from the basic goal it couldn't spend enough time away to satisfy and threads were cut short. But, mostly, the things you'd instinctively think are flaws were really conscious decisions for the sake of the tone and style of the movie. Focusing on character, or going deep into a moral themes or a complex plot is all well and good, but Kong included those things only as far as they didn't detracted from the beautiful, gleeful spectacle -- its priority. And considering that this is a movie about a fantastical island full of jumbo-sized monsters and wacky fantasy creatures that do battle with each other, I feel like the priorities were in the exact right place.
 |
| And a bit like monkey breath? |
The movie is directed by Jordan Vogt-Roberts, a name I didn't recognize at first, but his style I did. He directed The Kings of Summer, a movie that most are less likely to have seen than Kong, but a great movie with a love for nature and an eye for stylish macro shots. That style translates magnificently to this film, and is enhanced to epic proportions. As the steadily dwindling group explores the island we get to explore it too, through the camera's wondering eye. The beauty and the creativity is not what you conventionally see in a monster flick, but with how well it works you'd think it would be.
Vogt-Roberts did not hold back on any visual aspect of the movie -- any. The location shooting and the attention to detail for the era made it almost impossible for me to shake the feeling that I was actually watching a movie from the 70's -- an unexpected but welcome feeling. Of course the special effects were miles better than anything 40 years old could give us, and in fact were a good distance better than what most CGI-heavy flicks crank out these days too. This movie was made to be a visual feast of epic entertainment, and there was no skimping on achieving that goal.
 |
| Every sequence was a new array of colors and shapes and textures and immaculate focusing and sweet music... |
I only have one question: how did they manage to collect this cast? A bunch of them hail from (or will soon join) Marvel movies -- Tom Hiddleston is the cool-and-collected tracker-for-hire, Brie Larson is the spirited war photographer, Samuel L. Jackson is the squad leader, John C. Reilly is oddball scene-stealing highlight of the whole movie, and Shea Whigham, and Toby Kebbell (yes I'm counting Fant4stic) are soldiers. (Kebbell also provided some facial mo-cap for Kong, though the vast majority of Kong was Terry Notary.) Otherwise, there's John Goodman as the expedition instigator, and his scientist colleges Corey Hawkins and Tian Jing. Jason Mitchell and Thomas Mann round out the soldiers with memorable roles. I said it was a big cast! And that's just the people who, if they die, you feel sad for.
The deaths are pretty sad too, in spite of the overwhelmingly fun tone of the film; or maybe because of it, with dramatic contrast. The characters were defined well by all having their little niche or quirk which made them memorable, but they were also underdeveloped in the classic action flick way. It seemed particularly as though Hiddleston and Larson's characters were purposefully being held back -- saving the development for sequels perhaps. Still, they were effortlessly charming together. I was on board with this film since Tom was announced to star, and he didn't let me down.
 |
| Even though he was a little pointless. I think the movie got a few conflicting rewrites. You can almost see the plot that was removed. |
John C. Reilly stole the whole movie of course, was hilarious and simultaneously the backbone of the film's heart, which yes, it did have plenty of for its genre. Another who unexpectedly left a big impression was Toby Kebbell's human role. I've always been interested in his work but was so far unable to properly appreciate it due to disappointing role choices and lots of motion capture parts. Because of how expressive he is, he's great at mo-cap, but that means that without the CGI translation he's even better -- and here he is finally a live-action, well-written, sympathetic character, and thus he has finally turned my head. And he was the only character whose name I learned!
In my favorite scene he comes across Kong at a lake and watches the giant ape take a drink -- the excess water sounding like a waterfall as it pours back into the lake -- and then battle a giant lake-squid and eat it in a humorous manner. And that pretty much sums up the whole movie for me. It's odd, ridiculous, epic and funny, with realistic attention to detail, and there's a bunch of faces in the background who look really good under a macro lens.
 |
| Pretty location, pretty filming, pretty people. |
There were a few aspects that could have been improved without creating an imbalance. The ending was a bit sudden and messy, character's names are nice to know, and whenever the plot strayed from the basic goal it couldn't spend enough time away to satisfy and threads were cut short. But, mostly, the things you'd instinctively think are flaws were really conscious decisions for the sake of the tone and style of the movie. Focusing on character, or going deep into a moral themes or a complex plot is all well and good, but Kong included those things only as far as they didn't detracted from the beautiful, gleeful spectacle -- its priority. And considering that this is a movie about a fantastical island full of jumbo-sized monsters and wacky fantasy creatures that do battle with each other, I feel like the priorities were in the exact right place.
Wednesday, March 1, 2017
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!
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!
Saturday, March 26, 2016
10 Cloverfield Lane
How to enjoy 10 Cloverfield Lane -- a step by step guide:
10 Cloverfield Lane was surprised upon fans with a trailer (and consequential announcement of its existence) a mere two months before the film's release. It is not a sequel of another J.J. Abrams -produced monster-thriller Cloverfield, but it does share a similar flavor and the same universe. Abrams called it a "spiritual successor." I saw and enjoyed the 2008 Cloverfield before watching this one, but it didn't have any effect either way on my understanding or enjoyment of this one.
10 Cloverfield Lane benefits greatly from being such a well-kept secret. The less you know going in the better effect it has, I promise. I knew next to nothing -- and almost wish I had known even less. The movie stars Mary Elizabeth Winstead, John Goodman and John Gallagher Jr. as three people who hide in an underground bunker from an undisclosed attack that has left the air toxic; but Michelle's only proof of this is the word of the two men with her, and she doesn't know if she can trust them or not.
The story uses mystery to its full advantage. Even before you get to the theater the questions and mind games have begun. Then it starts with a palpable sense of dreadful mystery, and the plot is continually building on top of itself from there. Everything -- literally everything -- is constantly increasing. Increasing tension, building urgency, deepening characters, adding question after question while giving out just the right amount of answers to keep you engaged and devouring the next thrilling moment, eyes glued to the screen, wracking your brain for answers but knowing full well you'll never figure it out before you're supposed to. Yet you're never left out of the loop, and every plot point is thought through with careful neatness, so everything makes perfect sense.
The story is so clean, so simplistic, and every element has a purpose. Every single element both serves to develop character and themes, and is necessary to the plot, all fitting together in the end with the satisfaction of a completed jigsaw puzzle. It's on such a small scale, spending practically all the film in one place, with three characters, and sometimes it edges closer to a drama than a horror/thriller flick. But it establishes itself so well, worming its way deep and permanently into our minds and even eventually our hearts (in true high-quality horror-hero fashion) that by the end it reaches a level of grand magnificence that cannot be topped even by the biggest, loudest superhero blockbuster.
Speaking of loud, I loved the way volume was used to startle you out of the usually quiet tension. There was also an unexpected amount of comedy. Black comedy certainly, but genuinely funny. Good thing too -- without the release created by the humor I may have crumpled up into a tiny ball from suspense and the increasing tension. I also want to express my gratitude over this film's clean rating. It could have easily stepped into R-territory, but instead remained PG-13. And you can tell the only things that made it into the movie where things that enhanced the story and furthered the plot. Even violence was shown just enough to get the idea across. The singular dedication to this story is quite impressive, and paid off unarguably well.
The most commonly mentioned critique is that the last stage feels "tacked on" and doesn't fit with the rest of the movie. I feel the complete opposite. For me the endgame was the powerhouse play -- the moments where the impossibly extreme suspense actually pays off to its fullest potential, and the impactful conclusion is delivered with a deafening bang.
I'm giving this film five stars -- it earned every point of each one -- but it's interesting; this is a rare one-and-done five star movie. Most of thrill is held only it the first viewing. Once you see it there's no immediate need to go back in order to understand or pick up on a few more things that you originally missed. Soaking in every last drop the first time is practically guaranteed. But, even though I'm not currently planning my next viewing, it's only been a couple hours since I saw it as I write, and I'm feeling more and more that eventually I won't be able to resist trying to relive the awe-inducing experience of this movie's gripping and exhilarating ending again -- though I doubt it'll be as thoroughly affecting as it was the first time.
The performances by all three of the cast members were beautifully nuanced and fantastic. John Goodman was totally brilliant -- he's always good but reached a whole new level here -- and Mary Elizabeth Winstead impressed and won me over exactly as was planned with her resourceful and smart young heroine. Her character journey, to the story's pacing, to tone and technical aspects, right down to the smallest detail was perfect. Yes, truly perfect. Complete and flawless in its storytelling, it totally captivated me, and there isn't one thing I can think of to nit-pick. No tiny plot hole, or irking detail that I'd be happy to ignore. 10 Cloverfield Lane is immaculate, and magnificent. It thrills; it chills; and it confidently fulfills every last one of the mysteriously vague promises it has so cleverly implied are lurking within its dark, windowless walls.
- Have a preexisting inclination towards mysterious/psychological/horror/thriller movies -- however slight.
- Do not find out anything more than necessary about the plot beforehand. Don't even watch the trailer. Don't even read this review.
 |
| Director Dan Trachtenberg jumps straight to level "expert" with his first feature film. And credit to the writers for a detailed and smart story and script. |
10 Cloverfield Lane was surprised upon fans with a trailer (and consequential announcement of its existence) a mere two months before the film's release. It is not a sequel of another J.J. Abrams -produced monster-thriller Cloverfield, but it does share a similar flavor and the same universe. Abrams called it a "spiritual successor." I saw and enjoyed the 2008 Cloverfield before watching this one, but it didn't have any effect either way on my understanding or enjoyment of this one.
10 Cloverfield Lane benefits greatly from being such a well-kept secret. The less you know going in the better effect it has, I promise. I knew next to nothing -- and almost wish I had known even less. The movie stars Mary Elizabeth Winstead, John Goodman and John Gallagher Jr. as three people who hide in an underground bunker from an undisclosed attack that has left the air toxic; but Michelle's only proof of this is the word of the two men with her, and she doesn't know if she can trust them or not.
 |
| If this movie was an evil villain's master plan for world domination instead of a film, it would be unstoppable. |
The story uses mystery to its full advantage. Even before you get to the theater the questions and mind games have begun. Then it starts with a palpable sense of dreadful mystery, and the plot is continually building on top of itself from there. Everything -- literally everything -- is constantly increasing. Increasing tension, building urgency, deepening characters, adding question after question while giving out just the right amount of answers to keep you engaged and devouring the next thrilling moment, eyes glued to the screen, wracking your brain for answers but knowing full well you'll never figure it out before you're supposed to. Yet you're never left out of the loop, and every plot point is thought through with careful neatness, so everything makes perfect sense.
The story is so clean, so simplistic, and every element has a purpose. Every single element both serves to develop character and themes, and is necessary to the plot, all fitting together in the end with the satisfaction of a completed jigsaw puzzle. It's on such a small scale, spending practically all the film in one place, with three characters, and sometimes it edges closer to a drama than a horror/thriller flick. But it establishes itself so well, worming its way deep and permanently into our minds and even eventually our hearts (in true high-quality horror-hero fashion) that by the end it reaches a level of grand magnificence that cannot be topped even by the biggest, loudest superhero blockbuster.
 |
| It thrilled me to my core. |
Speaking of loud, I loved the way volume was used to startle you out of the usually quiet tension. There was also an unexpected amount of comedy. Black comedy certainly, but genuinely funny. Good thing too -- without the release created by the humor I may have crumpled up into a tiny ball from suspense and the increasing tension. I also want to express my gratitude over this film's clean rating. It could have easily stepped into R-territory, but instead remained PG-13. And you can tell the only things that made it into the movie where things that enhanced the story and furthered the plot. Even violence was shown just enough to get the idea across. The singular dedication to this story is quite impressive, and paid off unarguably well.
The most commonly mentioned critique is that the last stage feels "tacked on" and doesn't fit with the rest of the movie. I feel the complete opposite. For me the endgame was the powerhouse play -- the moments where the impossibly extreme suspense actually pays off to its fullest potential, and the impactful conclusion is delivered with a deafening bang.
I'm giving this film five stars -- it earned every point of each one -- but it's interesting; this is a rare one-and-done five star movie. Most of thrill is held only it the first viewing. Once you see it there's no immediate need to go back in order to understand or pick up on a few more things that you originally missed. Soaking in every last drop the first time is practically guaranteed. But, even though I'm not currently planning my next viewing, it's only been a couple hours since I saw it as I write, and I'm feeling more and more that eventually I won't be able to resist trying to relive the awe-inducing experience of this movie's gripping and exhilarating ending again -- though I doubt it'll be as thoroughly affecting as it was the first time.
 |
| I have seriously never, ever seen a film like this before. It's really sticking with me... Yeah, I'm gonna have to see it again. |
The performances by all three of the cast members were beautifully nuanced and fantastic. John Goodman was totally brilliant -- he's always good but reached a whole new level here -- and Mary Elizabeth Winstead impressed and won me over exactly as was planned with her resourceful and smart young heroine. Her character journey, to the story's pacing, to tone and technical aspects, right down to the smallest detail was perfect. Yes, truly perfect. Complete and flawless in its storytelling, it totally captivated me, and there isn't one thing I can think of to nit-pick. No tiny plot hole, or irking detail that I'd be happy to ignore. 10 Cloverfield Lane is immaculate, and magnificent. It thrills; it chills; and it confidently fulfills every last one of the mysteriously vague promises it has so cleverly implied are lurking within its dark, windowless walls.
Friday, February 26, 2016
The Monuments Men
Some mild Spoilers.
World War II is beginning to come to a close as the Allies slowly and surely beat the Nazis back out of the cities they've invaded. But a new problem that many didn't see coming arises: as the Nazi troops leave, they take with them whatever they want, and often destroy the city as they go. Cities full of old buildings and monuments of historical and artistic value. And they take whatever they can move; statues and paintings by the thousands. One man did see it coming, and he pulls together a group of rag-tag men who are willing to risk their lives. Their mission? To protect the art they can, and retrieve what was already stolen.
Besides having the adapted screenplay written by him and being directed by him, The Monuments Men cast is led by George Clooney. Matt Damon is his right-hand man, Bill Murray is an architect, John Goodman is a sculptor, Bob Balaban ran a ballet; Jean Dujardin is a Frenchman whose initial purpose I've forgotten, Hugh Bonneville is the British team member, and Dimitri Leonidas is a young Jewish German who fled Germany before the war and serves as an interpreter. There's also Cate Blanchett present, as a French woman who keeps tabs on the art she witnesses being moved, but has a hard time trusting anyone with her knowledge. Of all these characters I was surprised to enjoy Jean Dujardin's the most. He had a natural charisma that the film's lackluster style couldn't drag down.
And with that remark I'm going to go ahead and say right now: I did not enjoy this movie. In fact, it bored me silly. I won't go so far as to say that it was a bad movie, because technically it was well-made, and I'm pretty sure it succeeded in doing exactly what it wanted to, and I want to give it credit for that. However, I have issues to take, and jaded insults to toss. So let this serve as a disclaimer, and let's get to it!
I'll start with the boringness of it all. I haven't been this bored by a movie since I grew out of being too young to "get" some movies. And I have never been this bored during a Matt Damon movie. Lately I've been examining the building intensity before resolution of each act in a three-act story format, and over the past few weeks I've become very aware of it while watching movies. Well, Monuments Men was so boring that I couldn't tell what was supposed to be the act changes because it was all the same droning, dull, plodding tone. Looking back, I suppose the end of act one and two were deaths, which was... a bad idea. It was not a good idea. And even at the end when they find that one piece of art they've been looking for the whole time, I knew (and I was relieved) that it was finally the end, but it didn't feel like an end; it was just as anti-climactic and completely devoid of excitement as the rest of the movie.
One of the film's main themes -- actually it was the main theme -- was the question of whether or not it was worth risking human lives to retrieve art that had been formed by human hands. Two of the Monuments Men die while protecting and searching for the stolen art. And both deaths are accompanied by sad monologues about the importance of their mission. But with each death and monologue I was less and less convinced. They kept saying it was about the history and the culture and I kept thinking that knowingly giving up human lives for memorabilia from the past is not a good trade.
Not to disparage the people who thought it was worth it and took the risk, I do respect them, but this whole movie was trying to justify that mindset as something that is always true and right, and it never won me over -- and not just because I disagreed with it. I watch movies all the time that proclaim things I disagree with, and I usually find myself having suspended belief for the movie's duration. It's not like I wasn't willing to briefly suspend my opinions in favor of those of The Monuments Men; it was just never able to pull my mind out of reality and into its story. I just spent the whole two hours sitting on the living room couch, bored, waiting for the action that never came, while rolling my eyes at the miles of spark-less conversations, the calm attempts at humor and the overplayed death scenes.
Once in a while there was a moment or two that edged briefly onto the memorable and enjoyable side, and then there were the few things I actively disliked, but for the most part this film never touched me at all. Neutral. Sometimes a movie being careful and winding up neutral is worse than its taking risks and failing in the eyes of some. What am I saying? It's always worse. It seems to me that this movie could have learned a thing or two from its brave and committed title heroes.
World War II is beginning to come to a close as the Allies slowly and surely beat the Nazis back out of the cities they've invaded. But a new problem that many didn't see coming arises: as the Nazi troops leave, they take with them whatever they want, and often destroy the city as they go. Cities full of old buildings and monuments of historical and artistic value. And they take whatever they can move; statues and paintings by the thousands. One man did see it coming, and he pulls together a group of rag-tag men who are willing to risk their lives. Their mission? To protect the art they can, and retrieve what was already stolen.
 |
| Damon and Clooney in a "old man" movie. What is the world coming to...? |
Besides having the adapted screenplay written by him and being directed by him, The Monuments Men cast is led by George Clooney. Matt Damon is his right-hand man, Bill Murray is an architect, John Goodman is a sculptor, Bob Balaban ran a ballet; Jean Dujardin is a Frenchman whose initial purpose I've forgotten, Hugh Bonneville is the British team member, and Dimitri Leonidas is a young Jewish German who fled Germany before the war and serves as an interpreter. There's also Cate Blanchett present, as a French woman who keeps tabs on the art she witnesses being moved, but has a hard time trusting anyone with her knowledge. Of all these characters I was surprised to enjoy Jean Dujardin's the most. He had a natural charisma that the film's lackluster style couldn't drag down.
And with that remark I'm going to go ahead and say right now: I did not enjoy this movie. In fact, it bored me silly. I won't go so far as to say that it was a bad movie, because technically it was well-made, and I'm pretty sure it succeeded in doing exactly what it wanted to, and I want to give it credit for that. However, I have issues to take, and jaded insults to toss. So let this serve as a disclaimer, and let's get to it!
 |
| Please direct your attention to the front of the class. |
I'll start with the boringness of it all. I haven't been this bored by a movie since I grew out of being too young to "get" some movies. And I have never been this bored during a Matt Damon movie. Lately I've been examining the building intensity before resolution of each act in a three-act story format, and over the past few weeks I've become very aware of it while watching movies. Well, Monuments Men was so boring that I couldn't tell what was supposed to be the act changes because it was all the same droning, dull, plodding tone. Looking back, I suppose the end of act one and two were deaths, which was... a bad idea. It was not a good idea. And even at the end when they find that one piece of art they've been looking for the whole time, I knew (and I was relieved) that it was finally the end, but it didn't feel like an end; it was just as anti-climactic and completely devoid of excitement as the rest of the movie.
 |
| Damon and Blanchett watch paint dry. Or this movie. It's tough to tell. |
One of the film's main themes -- actually it was the main theme -- was the question of whether or not it was worth risking human lives to retrieve art that had been formed by human hands. Two of the Monuments Men die while protecting and searching for the stolen art. And both deaths are accompanied by sad monologues about the importance of their mission. But with each death and monologue I was less and less convinced. They kept saying it was about the history and the culture and I kept thinking that knowingly giving up human lives for memorabilia from the past is not a good trade.
Not to disparage the people who thought it was worth it and took the risk, I do respect them, but this whole movie was trying to justify that mindset as something that is always true and right, and it never won me over -- and not just because I disagreed with it. I watch movies all the time that proclaim things I disagree with, and I usually find myself having suspended belief for the movie's duration. It's not like I wasn't willing to briefly suspend my opinions in favor of those of The Monuments Men; it was just never able to pull my mind out of reality and into its story. I just spent the whole two hours sitting on the living room couch, bored, waiting for the action that never came, while rolling my eyes at the miles of spark-less conversations, the calm attempts at humor and the overplayed death scenes.
 |
| Okay, pack it up -- show's over! |
Once in a while there was a moment or two that edged briefly onto the memorable and enjoyable side, and then there were the few things I actively disliked, but for the most part this film never touched me at all. Neutral. Sometimes a movie being careful and winding up neutral is worse than its taking risks and failing in the eyes of some. What am I saying? It's always worse. It seems to me that this movie could have learned a thing or two from its brave and committed title heroes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)