Timothée Chalamet plays the Woody Allen archetype and Elle Fanning plays the most annoyingly hyper and ditzy girl imaginable in this laid-back amble through NYC—and they do pretty good job at it.
It's kinda like if an AI copied Woody Allen. And that's kinda part of the charm.
They go to New York from their upstate college; Elle for business (she landed an interview with a semi-popular artsy filmmaker) and Timothée for pleasure (he loves New York, naturally). They part ways, planning to meet up later. Typical Woody Allen hijinks ensue. Quirky, ponderous monologues are made. The two characters meander from place to place, finding and losing other odd characters played by other famous actors as they get into and out of niche situations. Liev Schreiber, Jude Law, Selena Gomez, Diego Luna, Cherry Jones... It rains. Then an ending place is reached and the credits roll.
It's par for the course on Woody Allen movies. If you always like his style, your mind is made up. If you always dislike his style, likewise. I'm in the middle somewhere. Watching this thing breeze by, it felt meandering and pointless, though not unpleasant. The cast was nice. Even Elle being annoying was intentional and had amusingness in it. Timothée was a little more relaxed into his role than he sometimes is. (It's not a try-hard acting part.) He comes across a little pretentious at first then warms as we follow him through the day. I was lukewarm on it overall. But then the ending shone a different light on preceding events.
This movie is all about the journey, but my taste in entertainment relies (perhaps too much) on destination.
I guess that's the thing about Woody Allen. You know to expect the meandering, the monologues, the old music. What you don't know is whether the plot is going to work for you or not. With a plot as meandering and distracted as this one felt, it seemed capable of going anywhere—until it got to where it was always going. And I have to say, I liked the destination. I liked it so much that my lukewarm feelings have turned into something more substantial. Something more distinctly positive. Something I wouldn't mind wandering through again someday.
I think that's all this minor jaunt was intended to be; I won't bother it for anything more.
Thanks to Jacob Smith for featuring this review on his site! If you're interested in movie reviews, news, and opinion pieces from a conservative perspective, you should definitely check it out -- society-reviews.com! Spoiler-free!
The MCU's latest origin story is also its first solo film for a female character. They put their absolute best effort into touting the movie as such, and after seeing it, I understand why all the emphasis was on pre-hype. One of Marvel's safest and least-daring films, Carol Danvers' introduction to the universe doesn't do much that's spectacularly irritating -- mostly because it doesn't do anything spectacular at all.
Directed by Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck but written by three additional people because all MCU movies all have to be camels at this point.
We start out with a brief glimpse of the Kree world where Carol (Brie Larson) is serving in the Kree/Skrull war under Yon-Rogg (Jude Law). There's one shot of the Kree city outside her widow that looks like a magnificent scifi scape leaning towards noir-ish, cyberpunk-ish vibes, but we never see it up close. She does some training, she goes on mission, and eventually winds up stranded on Earth circa 1995 where she meets a younger, two-eyed Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) and Coulson (Clark Gregg) and goes on a hunt for some people of her forgotten memories (Annette Bening) and (Lashana Lynch), all the while the Skrull Talos (Ben Mendelsohn) and his crew are on her tail.
The Skrulls are shape-shifting aliens and shape-shifting is an easy harbinger of fun. And the movie touches on its potential. It's the mid-90's which means grunge and kind of wonderfully cheesy music; and the movie touches on that, too. Carol wears band tees and ripped jeans, and the computers are super slow. Otherwise it could be set anytime. Style only seems to cross the movie's mind is when there's cool CGI effects to show off. Even the worst of the past MCU films have had tonal style and the dampener of the Marvel Brand isn't excuse for the blandness we get here. I wish they had fully embraced the grungy 90's and low-key cheesy spy thriller aspect it was all crying for. It could've been amazing with relatively little tweaking to the core story.
One thing I loved with all my heart: her helmet mohawk.
The central heart of the story -- getting up when you're knocked down -- had a solid foundation, but I hesitate to call it a theme because the movie's attempts to present it as theme were grasping. Visually it had impact and you can practically feel them scrambling for a verbal iteration to match in the moment. The set-up for Carol's development is weak, and the part about her needing to control her emotions was left hanging. That didn't make sense to begin with as Larson's acting style is so reserved that her being overly emotional as the script says doesn't fly. And I'll will readily defend Larson's acting abilities. She can work wonders in indie films where everything's understated. But as a blockbuster-action superhero, her internalizing emotions gets lost in the total lack of nuance.
There were moments she made me laugh with her delivery and times she made me smile just by being happy and laughing with Fury. On the other side, I think she was miscast. She does look the part and all MCU actors give better performances elsewhere, but ultimately her inexpressive style only adds to the bland feeling that brings the movie down. The only person who seems committed to having fun here is Ben Mendelsohn. Samuel L. Jackson's natural charisma works so well for him that I can't tell if he was phoning in or not. He's also better elsewhere with better scripts. This script actively attacks him, making one very significant thing happen that does its level best to ruin his character with its abject stupidity. (Hint: it's to do with his eye.) Just another day at the old MCU!
Larson and Jackson had fun chemistry. The movie could've leaned hard into their dynamic and been better for it. But it could've leaned into anything and been better for it.
Fan-favorite Goose the cat was great -- when he was being played by a real cat. The disgracefully rendered CGI cat that he was half the time seems to have been animated by a person who has never seen a cat before. It moved like boneless dog. Other random things that bothered me was how Carol's hair was always curled. I felt like her stylist was sitting behind me with a hot iron, waiting for the camera to cut so she could run in and fix the falling waves. There are the expected Marvel Brand jokes to make me die inside. And they only play three era songs for a decent amount of time. One is horribly matched to a fight scene. The fighting overall was shot lazily to negate the need for good choreography. The good action beats came from special effects and infused drama instead.
Despite all this, I did somewhat enjoy myself for the most part. Perhaps simply because I expected a dumpster fire, and instead it was like watching the garbage truck come by your house; something vaguely loud to look at that isn't impactful in any significant way. They did manage to lose me eventually though, with a later twist. To "subvert expectations" is required in every movie now, and appropriately this subversion throws a wrench in the plotting. It flounders for a while before it settles into a new groove, no better than the original. Overall the whole thing feels like the result of cutting corners and skimping on budget -- but if anyone can take a slight risk and make a decent film for girl protagonist, it's Marvel! ... Right?
At this point, I'm not particularly interested in the supposed future Avengers line-up, and if nothing changes for Marvel it won't be hard to quit.
The temptation to pander and squeak by on as little effort as possible was simply too strong. And why not when you can trust the brand and the hype to sell the resulting painfully average product regardless of quality? A handful of genuinely enjoyable moments and splashes of shiny CGI among long stretches of middling boredom is all we are rewarded with for our loyal patronage. Captain Marvel isn't a terrible movie; nor is it good, or a waste, or a success, or hardly anything resembling a movie at all. It has more in common with an extremely competent exercise in running down a checklist. The soulless Marvel assembly machine grinds on.
In October I got to the theater to see Venom (review), which I didn't care for but have no enmity towards either, and Bad Times at the El Royale (review), which rocketed up to be my #3 movie of the year!
I never got around to First Man, so that's my top priority now, and hopefully I'll have time to catch up before November's interesting movies get here. There aren't any absolute must-sees for me this month, but I wouldn't be surprised if I wound up seeing one or two.
What looks good to you? Happy November!
Bohemian Rhapsody
Nov 2nd; PG-13
Full disclosure, I'm not much a Queen fan particularly, but I am a fan of 70's/80's rock. I'm also a fan of Rami Malek (ever since Larry Crown) and word is that he's great in this. Word is also that the movie around him isn't so great, but I get a sneaky suspicion that expectations of this being an Oscar contender may have heightened the disappointment. Just the PG-13 rating is a good indicator that it wasn't exactly vying for a best pic nom. The trailer is very groovy and if the film is like that, I expect I'll get a kick out of it someday. I'd be there for the music mostly anyway.
Nutcracker and the Four Realms
Nov 2nd; PG
Twelve-year-old me would've been all over this. Now, if I ever sat down to watch it, it would be in the hope that it's so stupid and horrendously bad that I could just laugh at it for 2 hours. I actually want to see Keira Knightly embarrass herself with that pink hair and those eyebrows and that voice. Does that make me a bad person? I realize it's a movie for kids, but actually good kid movies are good adult movies too, and really, if they were serious about doing an updated twist on The Nutcracker, this is the absolute LAST way I'd want it done.
Prospect
Nov 2nd(limited); R
Coooool. Small budget scifi that still looks good; doesn't try to push the limit of what they can cohesively accomplish, but sticks to what makes all stories compelling: the human element. Character. That's what trailer makes it out to be, anyway, and I'd love to give it a watch. Scifi always seems to be best used as a catalyst for drama and conflict instead of being the main focus itself.
Overlord
Nov 9th; R
Now this is interesting. This is the J.J. Abrams-produced WWII zombie film that was originally meant to be a part of the Cloverfield Universe. (So they say.) But the Cloverfield part has been ditched. I suspected that choice was made after The Cloverfield Paradox got such a terrible reaction. Like they didn't have confidence in this movie's quality and didn't want to keep making bad Cloverfield movies. BUT, this movie's getting great reviews so far. I wanted to see it even before I saw the trailer, but after the trailer I didn't expect this good a reaction. I guess zombies and Nazis are a pretty fun combo!
The Girl in the Spider's Web
Nov 9th; R
I've never seen a Girl with a Dragon Tattoo film before, but this is the closest I've come to wanting to see one. If they keep on making these movie (I dunno how much source material there is) they won't have to bother with trying to make James Bond a girl. I guess these movies are much more mature and thriller-y than Bond, but this trailer definitely has that kind of appeal. Also I bet Claire Foy is awesome in it. AND I caught a glimpse of the young German actress who plays the deaf girl in Dark, and it's so cool seeing actors from Dark outside of that show, even if it small roles.
Outlaw King
Nov 9th; R
I watched the trailer and was still confused about who exactly the outlaw king is. Robert the Bruce? Either I'm bad at history or he was kinda obscure. But okay, I can dig it. Medieval, Scotland, war, kings, knights. Not huge on Chris Pine, but there's plenty of other people there too. And it's Netflix, so lazy afternoon watch it is!
Time Freak
Nov 9th; PG-13
Look y'all, Asa Butterfield and Sophie Turner are doing an About Time movie, but for kids! So, extra focus on the time-travel gimmick, more traditional and cliched romance, and cheaper comedy efforts. For some reason, I still wouldn't mind watching it.
Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald
Nov 16th; PG-13
Haha, can you imagine if they called this "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them: The Crimes of Grindelwald"??? They should have. Just commit to it, ya know? Anyway, I watched the first one and enjoyed it so I guess I'm in for this too. I'm not super excited about it in any particular way, but I've never been a big Harry Potter person to begin with. I liked era setting, and the character of Newt, and Jude Law as Dumbledore should be neat. I never thought I'd say this but I think I'm going to miss Colin Farrell as the bad guy though.
Widows
Nov 16th; R
This one's got a cast on it! Wowee. But I don't understand what the plot is? Some ladies' criminal husbands are killed so they decide to pull of their next planned heist? Why? Did the bad guy guy murder them because they robbed him, so they decide that's the best way to get revenge, or...? If the impression I'm getting here is right I'm not sure I'd be able to pull for our (anti?)heroines, but I guess I'll keep an eye out. What a cast.
The Ballad of Buster Scruggs
Nov 16th; R
The Coen Brothers have made a Netflix film. That's it, y'all. There's no going back now. Netflix allows for different types of movies, though, you know? This isn't the sort of flick people would be rushing to the theater to see, but because of Netflix it still got to be made -- without altering to be more appealing to the theater crowd -- and I'd be surprised right out of my boots if it isn't a good, fun, western time. An anthology film apparently, of several short films, all set in the wild west. I'm all the way on board!
The Clovehitch Killer
Nov 16th; NR
Charlie Plummer is doing a "My Neighbor is a Serial Killer" movie -- but even more dramatic, because it's not his neighbor he suspects, it's his father. This trope gets done quite a lot, but rarely as well and as real-life as it looks here, and after Lean on Pete I'll watch anything that kid tries his hand at, so I'm 1000% there for this movie. Seriously, the trailer looks great. Moody and intense... human drama over excessive thrills... coming of age elements... Plummer is probably great in it too, but what else is new?
Jonathan
Nov 16th; NR
Okay, so Ansel Elgort has dissociative personalities, one good one bad. The bad one's dating a girl, but then she breaks up with him to date the good one. Hahaha, well, I guess it's not a weird as cheating on one of the personalities. Wow I can't even keep a straight face typing this I bet the movie is golden I need to see this. Reviews so far skew positive though... so maybe it's genuinely decent, who knows. The trailer's definitely taking itself seriously. I'm not sure if I can.
Ralph Breaks the Internet
Nov 21st; PG
Oh hey. This actually looks good. For some reason I was expecting immediately obvious tragedy and downgrading but now I'm on the hook until the truth is revealed. It very well could still be tragedy. But they have a solid premise going that demands world expansion, and they're playing Rick Astley so they have to be a certain level of in the know concerning the pop culture they're going to be dealing with... idk... it might be good. If I ever feel like it's not, I probably will stay away though, because I kinda loved the first one.
Green Book
Nov 21st; PG-13
I tire easily of movies that purposefully take on the subject of racism, simply because they tend to serve to divide more than unite -- but judging from the trailer, this movie does the opposite of that, showcasing a positive side of things that can come through the negative, by focusing on the friendship between the two characters. This looks like a really good drama, with good performances and sleek, rich look. And they'll be piano music too I expect, so that'll be nice.
Robin Hood
Nov 21st; PG-13
You know that guy on YouTube who does trick and fast archery? Practical application and close-quarter stuff? This is a take on Robin Hood inspired by him I bet. I would be fairly surprised if it turned out to be critically praised or regarded flick, but that doesn't mean I'm not interesting in watching it. Quite the opposite. Robin Hood adaptations don't need to be exceptional pieces of film. It's action/adventure entertainment, and the sooner filmmakers understand this the sooner we can have an exceptionally fun Robin Hood movie. This may not be it -- but it could be. Taron Egerton and his fun screen presence will likely at least make it not a waste of time. And then there's Ben Mendelsohn and Jamie Foxx to consider.
Anna and the Apocalypse
Nov 30th(limited); R
IT'S A CHRISTMAS. ZOMBIE. MUSICAL!!! Oh my goodness. It's probably not going to be as good as I want it to be, but okay but that's only because my imagination is running wild right now, and there's no way it's not a little bit crazy fun. No way. With that combination, it'd be impossible to be outright bad. The trailer makes it look brilliant and like a blast. Actually even if it's bad it'd still be brilliant because its a brilliant idea. Wow, I'm totally hyped for the holiday season now.
In April I was right about there not being any must-see new releases for me, though I am still interested in most of them for a someday/rental view. I did get to the theater twice, though, to see some repeats -- Kong: Skull Island, and La La Land -- and both were every bit as good the second time!
May has my most highly anticipated movie of the year (!!!!) plus a couple big releases that I'll certainly see eventually whether or not I go out of my way for them. The blockbuster season is beginning!
How does the month look for you? Anything you're particularly excited for? Let me know in the comments!
Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
May 5th; PG-13
Do I even need to say anything? This has probably been my most anticipated movie ever since the day I saw the first Guardians of the Galaxy. I have a great amount of confidence in James Gunn, and his ability to write and direct something that is not only entertaining, but also unique, moving, and set perfectly to classic music. Then Chris Pratt is still the greatest thing since sliced cheese, and all this movie needs to win me is him and the other guardians, a handful of good jokes, some splashy visuals, and some groovy tunes, and all those things are already guaranteed. At this point, it's only a question of how good it's gonna be. Saving the galaxy again? You know it!
King Arthur: Legend of the Sword
May12th; PG-13
What's going on here? King Arthur getting the superhero treatment? Excalibur appears to have actual magical powers. Also, filmmakers continue to try and steal from the Lord of the Rings. So here's the thing: Guy Ritchie undoubtedly makes visually unique movies, which gives this one a good bit of appeal, and the plot doesn't look like the worst thing (although I'd bet it falls apart in the end a bit). I like Jude Law, but (as I mentioned last month) don't care for Charlie Hunnam. And it really looks like this trailer is desperate for attention. It certainly looks like the better side of casual popcorn-y action flicks, but probably won't be able to compete with the next Pirates film let alone the Marvel one. There's a little curiosity, but not much hope.
Alien: Covenant
May 19th; R
I recently watched Alien and Aliens for the first time, and then Prometheus, so now this film almost seems like required viewing -- so of course it has to push that R-rating further than I want to follow. Prometheus's disappointment was in not being so much of an Alien movie, but was otherwise very effective, so since this one truly features the aliens, it looks like an ideal blend. Visually modern, but referring back to the originals. I won't be seeing it in theaters, but now that I'm in the franchise... I don't think there's any escaping.
Everything, Everything
May 19th; PG-13
This month in sappy kiddie romances.... This one's based on a YA novel that I came across in a store and was surprised at how short and large-printed it was. More like a tween novel. But you gotta adapt those teen novels, so here it is. It's got Rue from The Hunger Games all grown up, Nick Robinson, and the lady from Nacho Libre, and looks just about as sappy and fluffy as they come. I looked up spoilers out of curiosity and it cemented those thoughts even more. Probably fans of the book are looking forward to it, and fans of the genre will watch it, but if it makes any kind of splash I'll be super surprised.
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales
May 26th; PG-13
So here's how I'm reasoning right now: there's no way this franchise could get any worse, so maybe this one is actually good? No way to go but up sort of deal? Well... "good" is maybe pushing it, but it certainly does look better than the last one, and the one before that, so maybe a Dead Man's Chest level of good? I'd be up for that. Sides of appeal: a young Jack Sparrow, Javier Bardem, Brenton Thwaites, and Kaya Scodelario. Plus the animation doesn't look as messy as it has before. The trailer says "final adventure." Does that mean this is the end?
It's long overdue, but I finally saw Frozen in February! And then I went even further, and -- now brace yourselves -- saw a movie, in the theaters, in the same month it was released in! Gasp. Yes, I somehow managed to convince my cynical family of the worthiness of The Lego Movie and we all saw it together. So expect reviews for those two movies soon!
In March, there's quite the wide variety of new interesting movies -- something catered to everyone, so what was catered to you? And are you going to go see it? For me, so far, it looks like a bunch of very near-misses.
Mr. Peabody and Sherman
Mar 7th; PG
This is a case of really good marketing, because I had zero interest in a Mr. Peabody and Sherman movie, even though I remember them fondly from The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show. But, then I saw this trailer, and it was funny -- really funny. It looks very amusing and mildly intelligent (for a kid's movie) and included in the cast is Patrick Warburton, aka Puddy, aka Buzz Lightyear (of Star Command), aka Kronk, (yeah I think you get it now) aka the only person who can make you laugh just by speaking. His entire role was probably shown in the trailer, but still. And since it's already reviewing positively, I now have a positive inclination to see it... eventually.
The Grand Budapest Hotel
Mar 7th (limited); R
Ralph Fiennes. Saoirse Ronan. Adrien Brody. Willem Dafoe. Jude Law. Bill Murray. Edward Norton. Jeff Goldblum. Tilda Swinton. Lea Seydoux. Tom Wilkinson. Owen Wilson. And, of course, Wes Anderson. Yep. All in one movie. I think I've said enough. (And used enough periods.) The bubble-burster though, (for me anyway) is the R rating. Thanks a bunch Anderson.
One Chance
Mar 14th; PG-13
Craig Owens-- I mean, James Corden plays a real-life British fellow who wants to be an opera singer, but is stuck working in a shop until he gets a chance to audition for Britan's Got Talent. It looks like a light, sweet, feel-good movie, and undoubtedly Corden will be absolutely wonderful, but that may not be enough to pull this movie over the typical height of typical movies of this type.
Muppets Most Wanted
Mar 21st; PG
This is a guaranteed hit, no doubt about it. It's got the Muppets; it's coming off the success of the last Muppets movie; it's got Ricky Gervais and Tiny Fey supporting, plus a list of actors (and various other famous people) with cameos a mile long, at the top of which is Tom Hiddleston. TOM HIDDLESTON. The trailer is very funny and actually has a plot to its name, and there will be more original songs by the awesome Bret McKenzie. I didn't watch Sesame Street as a kid; I don't have any sentimental connection here, but with all these draws, even I want to see this. Doesn't mean I will, (at least for a while) but still.
Divergent
Mar 21st; PG-13
I'm sure I could go on and on about this film, the book it based on, why I think it might turn out to be stupid, and why I'm hoping it won't, but the bottom line is this: the quality of this film is the determining factor for if I decide to jump on the bandwagon and risk becoming a fan or not. If the general consensus is good enough (I'm not sure how good good enough is, unfortunately) it'll be the push I need to pick up a copy of the book, and if it's very good, maybe to even see the film before reading the novel. So I wait to see.
Noah
Mar 28th; PG-13
Ugh. One look at the trailer and all the discrepancies changes and embellishments made begin to flood in like waters from the deep. My only interest in this is my interest in knowing exactly how botched it turns out to be. It's disappointing, because a sincere, Biblically accurate telling of the flood is something I'd absolutely be beside myself to see, but this one appears to have been turned into just another epic disaster movie, with lots and lots of action, and drama, and more action. Cause that's what people like. At least they made the arc look accurate, and they got a pretty talented cast too. And a part of me is always a little impressed when people make movies based (however loosely) on the Bible.
A while ago, I published a short anticipation post, Upcoming Movie: Rise of the Guardians, where I explained my interest in this DreamWorks animation. Short short version: it was because of the actors lending their voices to the characters. I was hoping the rest of the animated flick would... rise to the level of the talented, uniquely voiced actors starring.
Sadly, when it released and medium reviews came in, my hopes fell a little ways - not all the way - just enough to keep me away from the theater and 3D glasses. I finally got around to watching it yesterday.
Cheers!
Like any movie that involves Santa Claus, Rise of the Guardians is pretty much all about keeping kiddies believing in its fantasy characters. If the kids don't believe in the Guardians, they lose their power, so the bad guy - the Boogeyman - Pitch, has an evil plan to cause all the kids of the world to stop believing in them, so he can take over their dreams, replacing them with nightmares, and (therefore?) take over the world. To prevent this, the Man on the Moon chooses a new Guardian; Jack Frost.
If this sounds confusing, it's because it is. And too complicated for me to bother explaining any more - the first thirty minutes was almost totally spent in set-up. But essentially, Jack (Chris Pine) teams up with the existing Guardians, Santa (Alec Baldwin), the Easter Bunny (Hugh Jackman and his Aussie accent), the Tooth Fairy (Isla Fisher), and the voiceless Sandman, to defeat Jude Law's Pitch, doing his very best Loki impression.
One of my favorite things about animated movies: actor/character promo shots! Baldwin totally ruined the pattern though...
My instinct was right; the actors - or the actor's voices rather - where the best part of the film, but they still weren't as great as I was hoping. Hugh Jackman delivering practically nothing but punch lines was probably the best, and Isla Fisher, rambling and murmuring, the worst. The others had good moments and bad moments, easily defined; the serious moments were really forced (possibly due to having no one to play off of when recording lines alone?) I have to give Chris Pine credit though; he handled his lot of serious moments fairly well. And Alec Baldwin's Russian accent was funny addition. Jude Law had to be my favorite though - the whole movie was worth watching simply to hear him say "Oh, I thought I heard the clippity-clop of a unicorn." I also liked a neat effect as he would monologue while disappearing and re-appearing at varying distances, his voice would fade in and out, and the echo would change. Then he would suddenly be loud again, and our hero would wheel around to find him standing behind him in traditional creepy-baddie fashion.
So, I just made the connection that his black horses are nightmares. Duhh...
But that brings me to a few things that went wrong. Pitch is not the only character able to fly around and move inexplicably fast. They all can. And of course it made for a lot of location changes. Really fast ones. They're in the sky one moment, then in an alley, then a park, then suddenly somewhere where it's daytime. It got dizzying, and obviously was all only to show off the animation and 3D, and while I don't know about the 3D, the animation was nothing special compared to Disney and Pixar these days. There was one striking moment I can recall when Pitch and Jack have a Jedi-like standoff, but otherwise, Jack's hair was pretty much the only thing worth a good look.
Behold. The hair.
So I suppose this was done make use of some 3D gloss, and draw in little kids to the theater, and trick parents into bringing them by casting big-name actors. I don't know if the story was capable of being a truly great film by my taste (I never did that "Santa Claus" thing, so it holds very little charm for me) but it certainly could have been much better. Another mediocre attempt results in failed potential. Fortunately, it didn't disappoint me much; after all I never had anything much invested in it's quality, just a hankering to hear something new from a few actors I like. And that's what I got, along with a bonus of a mini Avengers-like adventure that is sometimes funny, has a few cute moments, and some interesting details.
All Vincent Freeman ever wanted to do was travel in space - to leave the earth in a rocket, and catch a little closer glimpse of the stars. Unfortunately, he's had something of a handicap ever since birth - ever since conception - he is not genetically enhanced. Oh, his parents meant well when they opted to not "give him his best chance" by insuring his genes made him strong and healthy and handsome, but in a society full of genetically enhanced, "valid" humans, exceptional is the new normal. And exceptional people are not just born. Vincent's parents realize this, when seconds after he is born, a DNA test results in a long list of defects he has, or will very likely have, including heart failure, and a mere thirty-year life expectancy. Their next child is enhanced; "valid," and as they grow up, Anton quickly surpasses Vincent in everything. The only job the genetic-discriminating world will give Vincent is that of a janitor, but he refuses to accept his fate. He buys and assumes the identity of a swimming star, Jerome Morrow, who has practically perfect genetics, but was paralyzed in an accident. Armed with this identity, all it takes is a DNA test for "Jerome" to be accepted into Gattaca, and start training for a mission into space. And as if living the life of a different person isn't hard enough, just a week before Jerome is scheduled to finally leave the earth, successful, his mission director is found murdered, and the main suspect is a "in-valid" named... Vincent Freeman.
And all that is just the set-up.
This 1997 understated, suspenseful, mystery/sci-fi/drama was the first film for Kiwi writer/director Andrew Niccol, who also penned the brilliant The Truman Show, one of my ultimate favorite films. Gattaca isn't very similar to The Truman Show though; it's more Minority Report. There is at least one similarity I did notice though - both movies hold your attention with ease, without the use of action sequences - explosive, stylized, violent, epic or otherwise. There is action, but not the effect filled, drawn out kind you see in big blockbusters, or expect to see in science fiction flicks. Now, don't get me wrong; I love me some action sequences (The Avengers is one of my favorite movies too) and Niccol probably could've gotten away with putting some in Gattaca, but I really respect that he didn't, because he really didn't need to.
Suspense is the order of the day here, and I could tell it was well-done, and subtle suspense too, because I regularly discovered myself unknowingly at the edge of my seat. The drama of Jerome trying to keep his true identity a secret, and the murder mystery element is plenty to hold interest with a firm, very neo-noir hand.
Oh yeah, and there's a little romance too; nothing very special, but I usually don't like Uma Thurman at all, and her more mellow performance here was plenty good. She plays Irene, a valid, who has potential heart problems in spite of being enhanced, and catches Jerome's interest. Vincent/Jerome, that is - Ethan Hawke - and I'm thinking is the first film I've ever seen him in. He plays the determined, controlled, reaching-for-the-stars hero of the future very pleasingly... and looks impressivly like Jude Law.
Law is the real Jerome of course, who goes by Eugene after selling his identity. Wheelchair-bound, Eugene wheels around the basement of the apartment he shares with Jerome, collecting his own DNA for Jerome's use, and making sarcastic remarks, and, occasionally, saving the day. His supporting role was actually the meatiest role of the film, plus the source of comic relief, and of course, Law did a great job with it all. Every time I find one of my eyelashes now, I can hear him saying, "Keep your lashes on your lids where they belong!" It's... actually not a bad thing at all.
There were a few things that didn't sit quite right with me - spoilers though, so I won't go into detail - but nothing that ruined the overall movie experience. I did skip through one short scene though, that justified one third of the movie's PG-13 rating for "brief violent images, language, and some sexuality," (as per usual) and dealt with the other two-thirds, but it was all relatively mild. I really like these kinds of movies. Different - Niccol tells a subtle, but unique story, and never adheres to genre stereotypes (like sci-fi requiring a side of action/adventure) just because that what you're "supposed" to do. And thought-provoking - Gattaca cleverly poses - plants - questions inside the plot, and then leaves you to your own devices to answer them to your satisfaction. Beautiful, but not overpowering or stylized, and never trying to force anything from us we don't want to give - Gattaca is an unimposing, cleverly acted, eye-pleasing science-fiction film. If you were me, you would be intrigued.
Now it's time for the television shows! As I mentioned in Part I, there's two to cover. Both modernize the classic character, but that's about where the similarities end, even though one practically copies the other.
I'll save the best for last, (If you're one of those people who eat dessert first, just scroll down until you see awesomeness! Do what you want!) and start with the American one. It's Elementary. No, really, that's what it's called.
Tagline? "New Holmes. New Watson. New York."
After the amazing success of BBC's Sherlock, the Americans, who can't be original to save their lives, wanted to start up a US version. They received "no" for an answer, so they decided to just do a copy, but make enough changes so the shows would be obviously different. Remember three sentences ago when I said Americans can't be original to save their lives? It's a CBS drama, and they made Watson a woman. I rest my case.
Lucy Liu is Joan Watson, to be exact. And Jonny Lee Miller was cast as the famous detective, who recently both moved to NYC, and gave up drinking and using drugs. Joan is a "sober companion," hired my Sherlock's father to keep him on the straight-and-narrow. Holmes consults with the NYPD on their most baffling cases, and Watson accompanies him to crime scenes and such, and of course, eventually becomes helpful. As soon as her work keeping Sherlock clean and sober is over... well, let's just say we all know she won't be leaving.
Now Watson's being turned into a woman was a little hard to swallow, but Lucy Liu really isn't bad. I just don't think of her as Watson, and problem solved. And Jonny Lee Miller actually makes a rather good Sherlock. His being British is very helpful, and he is plenty smart, insensitive, and annoying... in a way that makes him fun to watch. I credit him with making the show work.
...but if you look at this picture and immediately think "Watson and Sherlock"... you should seek help.
As you know, CBS crime dramas are all very similar, but usually with one unique feature. Elementary plays by those rules very well. There's always an interesting crime to solve, and not too much time is spent in the drama department. It's classic CBS... with Sherlock Holmes! If CBS dramas aren't your cup of tea, I doubt this would win you over, but if you don't mind a little formula -- as long as it's well done -- it's worth a viewing.
No matter how much I like Elementary though, when compared to Sherlock, it crumbles away into nothing and is shown for the cheap imitation it is.
I now give you... the real deal.
AWESOMENESS. THIS IS IT.
The BBC drama Sherlock has only had two seasons so far, and each season consisted of only three episodes. Of course, each episode is twice as long as any American show; an hour and a half instead of forty-five minutes, and every mystery is absolutely rich with intricacies. And as everyone knows, when something is rich, you consume it in small servings. Even though you never want to.
Creators and writers Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss (who also plays Sherlock's nosy brother Mycroft) know how to update things right. Sherlock is set in modern day London where Dr. John Watson has just come back Afghanistan. He's introduced to Sherlock Holmes because they both need a flatmate, and next thing you know, they've moved into 221B Baker Street, and John is tagging along with Sherlock in his adventures as a "consulting detective." John's therapist thinks he has post traumatic stress disorder, but the fact is that the opposite is true. John misses the danger of war, and working with Sherlock is exactly what he needs. And Sherlock soon discovers that John can be very helpful to him as well.
For instance, John becomes very good at handing him things.
What I love about this show is... everything. Ok, one of the things
about this show that makes me very happy is the respect shown for
Arthur Conan Doyle's original work. There's tons of great wink-wink
nudge-nudge references to classic Holmes stories, and the mysteries
themselves are modernized takes on original classic stories, insuring
that we simultaneously still respect Conan Doyles's genius, while also
appreciating the awesome and clever ways the stories have been reworked.
The words "loosely adapted" do not, in this case, make me want to run
away screaming.
In Part I, I said that Downey Jr. and Law's interpretation of Holmes and Watson's relationship was my favorite bit of the movies, and I said they balanced each other. Well. Benedict Cumberbatch's Sherlock, and Martin Freeman's Watson COMPLETE each other. With perfection. There's no other way to say it. The way these two bounce off each other with Moffat-penned wit, and that chemistry that cannot be faked produces a special kind of indescribable enjoyment you can't find anywhere else.
Above: Two brilliant actors, and one smiley face.
Alone, on their own merit, they are just as good. Martin Freeman and Benedict Cumberbatch are both spectacular actors, and fortunately will probably soon be getting the recognition they deserve. But this series really shows off their acting skill. The pitch-perfect writing helps I'm sure, but finding and portraying the right balance of Sherlock's more human side, and, well, less human side has got to be hard. (Not to even mention his warp-speed speaking pace!) But when the moment dictates that we should either love or hate Sherlock, I have no problem with happily complying. Watson, we're always supposed to love, and that's easy, but Freeman also gets a wide variety of emotional scenes that he plays impressively. Mrs. Hudson and Mycroft are regulars, and good additions to the show. Moriarty and Irene Adler get their time to shine too, and shine they certainly do. Even the cops and detectives Sherlock works with are not wasted characters.
Cumberbatch and Freeman are hands down the best Holmes, best Watson, together, simply the best, in every way possible. They are better than CBS and they are better than Robert Downey Jr., and I'm not sorry to say it. Those versions have their merits of course, and I do enjoy them all, just differently. It never fails to make me happy when anyone says "ok, Sherlock, let's go" or, "how did you deduce that, Sherlock?" and it comes out without a trace of sarcasm. It's the little things.
I don't want to start comparing shows to movies by giving out star ratings to these shows, and I think you've got the gist of what I think anyway. When it comes to TV, it's usually, "watch it" or "don't watch it," -- and in that case, Elementary and the much superior Sherlock would both get the same rating -- but there is a third category, and Sherlock is one of a few shows that fits in it; "watch it over and over." Yes, I am Sherlocked.
Watch at once, if convenient. If inconvenient, watch anyway. Could be....
Sherlock Holmes is everywhere these days. You've heard of the Robert Downey Jr. movies. You've probably seen them too. There's also a generic CBS crime drama that centers around the character. And a BBC series that has had two seasons and six episodes of pure brilliance so far. Now quick, guess which one I like best. No prize; it should be obvious.
So this post is part one of a review special that features one film franchise, two TV shows, and one iconic character.
First up is the franchise. Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law. And the unique thing about these films is that they are actually set in the "correct" time period, though that does not mean they've escaped updating.
Boom. Sherlock and Watson. They look the part, don't they?
Downey Jr. plays himself-- I mean, Sherlock Holmes the too-smart-for-his-britches British detective who solves London's most baffling cases using finely tuned deductive reasoning and observation skills. Jude Law is Dr. John Watson his ever-patient assistant in crime solving and flat-mate. Er, not flat-mate. John is moving out and leaving the exciting life of catching bad guys to get married to a lovely lady and settle down. Holmes isn't so keen on this idea, and does everything he can to coerce Watson into joining him on one last case. A creepy one that involves witch-craft, and apparent magic, and Mark Strong rising from the dead.
Oh yeah, and Irene Adler also shows up, in the form of Rachel McAdams.
Now, even though this film is set in the late 18oo's, it still feels like an updated version of Sherlock Holmes... just in every way except the date. Not that I can really use that as a flaw. I doubt anyone was trying for an authentic feel here. If they were, they would have cut back a little on the slow-motion explosions and stylized special effects. Or cast a Brit as Holmes. No, I'm pretty sure they were going for exactly what they achieved, and what they achieved is not bad, if slightly alarming when spoken aloud; Sherlock Holmes as an action star. And in that case, Downey Jr. was a great choice for the role. He's an old-fashioned Tony Stark, quipping and spurting out deductions as fast as we can take them.
And fortunately he does lots and lots of deducing. The mystery is intriguing, and a refreshing change - being a how-done-it instead of the usual who-done-it - and the plot unfolds in a fast-paced, fun style. But what I enjoy most about this version of Sherlock, is the relationship and chemistry between Holmes and Watson. And my favorite side of the duo is the good doctor's. Jude Law and his charming and classic rendition of Watson balances Downey Jr.'s more modern Holmes very nicely.
Above: The reasons this movie worked.
And in general, the sequel, A Game of Shadows does everything the same.
But is "the same" a good thing or a bad thing? And what about that "in general" part? I'll start with that. Basically, the amount of slow-motion stylized action sequences are doubled, and some ridiculous additions are made. Like someone being thrown from a moving train, landing safely in freezing water, and not seeming to be disturbed by it that much. Or Holmes disguising himself as a woman very badly and getting away with it. Silly. They also added super-villain Moriarty, but he was ultimately underwhelming.
Now, "the same." Creatively, that spark of freshness was just a little dull. (Eh, same old, same old...) But Downey Jr. and Law together were also the same, and that is a definite good thing. (Yay, consistency!) And since they have always been the best element of the franchise, the sequel was adequate enough, and I was, for the most part, satisfied.
Above: The reasons THIS movie worked.
To the original film, I give 3.5 stars, and to the sequel, 3.
This intriguing movie poster is for an animated movie scheduled to release on Nov. 21st. It's called Rise of the Guardians, a title that makes me think of The Dark Knight Rises, and Guardians of the Galaxy mushed together.
Concept art for Marvels upcoming film, Guardians of the Galaxy.
To clear up my confusion, I looked up Rise of the Guardians, and what I found was rather interesting. Here's the trailer:
This PG animated flick boasts the voice talents of several big names including Chris Pine as the apparent hero Jack Frost, Jude Law as the villain (the boogeyman? I don't know... his name is Pitch...) plus Hugh Jackman and Alec Baldwin as the Easter Bunny and Santa Clause respectively. Quite the cast. It also claims "the creators of 'How to Train Your Dragon,'" probably the best animated film DreamWorks ever managed, and what appears to be - in my opinion at least - an interesting and original premise, written in book form and for the film by William Joyce, who did the same thing for Meet the Robinsons.
How to Train Your Dragon surprised me; I didn't expect to like it so much.
Meet the Robinsons. Quirky, silly... not too shabby.
So I must say I'm intrigued. Mildly. There is, after all, always the possibility of it going way over the top, (or something similar) then falling flat on it face, (or something similar) and if that happens, I will likely not see it, but as it stands right now... I'll be keeping an interested eye on Rise of the Guardians.
What do you think? The top-notch cast is what got me.
Tom Hiddleston as F. Scott Fitzgerald in Midnight in Paris.
So I recently read The Great Gatsby for the first time. It
was after watching the trailer for the movie, coming in 2013. The trailer piqued
my interest, and then I saw the book was relatively short, and even looked easy
to read. So I read it. And I loved it. I loved the simplicity of the plot, the
wit, the imagery, and the first person writing. I imagined Fitzgerald as Tom Hiddleston, writing
all those witty lines for my entertainment. It was a lovely, pretty short read, and
now, of course, I’m ready for the movie. Because what’s the point of such a
great book if it’s not going to be made into a movie?
I assume that the one and only reason this is being made into a
movie again is so Carey Mulligan can play Daisy Buchanan. She is obviously the
only person who should ever do it; she’s perfect for it. I heard Daisy’s very
specific voice effortlessly as I read, and it sounded exactly like Mulligan. I’m
excited to see her, but what about the rest of the cast? Well, here come my
opinions, ready or not.
Carey Mulligan looking lovely as Daisy from the trailer.
I will never complain about seeing Joel Edgerton in a movie,
and I think he is very well cast here as Tom Buchanan. As I read the book, I forgot
Edgerton was going to be staring, but I knew there was someone I was
forgetting from the cast. I didn’t look it up though, because I wanted to keep my imagination
untainted. Ironically, I imagined Tom to look rather like Tom Hardy, whom Edgerton
played a brother to in Warrior.
Tom Hardy and Joel Edgerton in Warrior.
I was this close to unknowingly imagining the character as
the person actually going to play him. When I finished the book and looked at the
cast list again I had a pretty good chuckle. And then I was very happy of course.
Obviously, Edgerton will be great.
Tobey Maguire’s look as Nick from the trailer stuck with me
pretty well, but one thing about him worries me... Maguire’s usual characters
are at least slightly awkward, especially in the way he talks, but Nick wasn’t
like that; he was more normal, laid back and observing; like the audience or
reader in character form. Tobey Maguire is not the person I would think of for
this role, but he if does it right… i.e. if he leaves all things “Peter Parker”
behind, this role has the potential to be my absolute favorite of his.
Here Maguire is wondering if he should play the character to my liking, or not. Please do!
(I noticed people suggesting Joseph Gordon-Levitt for Nick, and I
think he would've been amazing, but I am heavily biased on that particular subject.)
And finally the main guy, Gatsby himself. And I don’t know
what to say. The fact is I'm having a hard time seeing DiCaprio as Gatsby. He’s a great
actor and I have no doubt he can perform it well – he does play insecure,
desperate characters exceptionally – but he just doesn’t seem quite right. His
voice is wrong, his looks aren’t classic enough... I guess I
just can’t hear DiCaprio say “old sport” and not have it come out funny – in a
bad way. I’m pretty sure my worries will be proven wrong in the end though, and
he’ll be a fine Gatsby.
See? He looks fine. I should relax, right?
No one really jumps out at me as being better for the role
than DiCaprio anyway. Certainly no American actors, but is that important?
Mulligan and Edgerton are British and Australian respectively, and the
newcomer playing Jordan is also an Aussie, and I’m sure an American accent is
no problem for them. If I think British, Cary Elwes comes to mind, and he naturally
has some of Gatsby’s qualities… if only he were twenty or so years younger. Jude
Law is also an interesting thought, and he has the air, and also the acting chops
for the role. If it were up to me to cast the film, he’d probably be my pick,
but alas, I’m just a consumer and must be satisfied with DiCaprio, and as I
said I’m sure he’ll be fine, at least.
A very young Cary Elwes, and...
Jude Law looking very dapper.
This book is in need of a successful film, and the trailer
looks promising, and faithful to the source material, if a little modernized feeling.
It’s going to be in 3D, which is odd, but if it’s quality 3D, I won’t complain,
and who knows, it might even be improved by it. Visuals seem to play a big role
here if you can judge by the trailer, and 3D was made for big visual movies. I’m
excited to see it, then remember my opinions on it from now, and see how they've
changed. And now that I have stated my opinions, I will move on and get excited
for different movies, like the first installment of The Hobbit, and wait
patiently for May 10.
Looks promising now - we'll see for sure in eight months.
