Upcoming Movie Roundup - March

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.

The Jungle Book (2016) & Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle

Spoilers.

Or: The Jungle Book v Mowgli: Which is Worse? 

They were announced at around the same time, and trying to one-up each other with their casting at the same time, but Jon Favreau's The Jungle Book beat Andy Serkis' Mowgli to release by two years. Still, I've always thought of them as competing movies, and never saw The Jungle Book, so once Mowgli released, I figured it was time to give them both a shot and see which is the winner.

They're both losers. Thanks for reading.

Nah -- I sat through both of them, so I'm gonna review and compare them, and I have a few things to get off my chest so hang tight.

Like questions. For example: Why does this elephant have moss growing on it??? (From Mowgli.)

The Jungle Book = the Disney live action remake. Mowgli = Warner Bros. sold to Netflix.

Cast:

Mowgli: Neel Sethi -- Rohan Chand

Bagheera: Ben Kingsley -- Christian Bale

Baloo: Bill Murray -- Andy Serkis

Shere Khan: Idris Elba -- Benedict Cumberbatch

Kaa: Scarlett Johansson -- Cate Blanchett

King Louie: Christopher Walken -- N/A

Wolf Mother: Lupita Nyong'o -- Naomie Harris

Also in The Jungle Book: Giancarlo Esposito.

Also in Mowgli: Peter Mullan, Tom Hollander, Eddie Marsan, Jack Reynor, Matthew Rhys.

Some casts, am I right? It's an impressive list of names, and beside the two kids, there's not a one I'd hesitate to say is talented. They're all terrible. No okay, fine: the actors in themselves do as well as they could be expected to do. Some, like Murray, Serkis and Walken are woefully miscast, and others just do what they do. The real problem here is that the characters are bad because they have confused characters. And the characters are confused because the writing is confused, BUT -- award one point to Mowgli, because the writing there is much cleaner and more straightforward.

Even though we were already familiar with this one's plot. Sorta. (From The Jungle Book.)

The Jungle Book had the disadvantage of being a remake, saddled with a nostalgia checklist and new things to bring to the table. As a result, things like this happen: King Louie, a character invented by Disney for the animation, who was named after "The King of Swing" Louis Prima, now doesn't sing a jazzy song or dance, but is monstrous and meant to be scary -- but is counterintuitively played by Christopher Walken. Or, they needed Mowgli and Bagheera to be separated so Mowgli can meet Baloo, but it doesn't make sense that Bagheera would leave, so he gets knocked out in a fight with Shere Khan. Or, since Shere Khan's the bad guy he needs to be present from the beginning, so flesh out his threat to kill Mowgli. And he needs a backstory reason to kill Mowgli. And the wolves shouldn't give up Mowgli so easily. And there has to be mini adventures to pad the run time since there's no musical numbers, but no horsing around with military elephants. Elephants have to be taken seriously. Also, forget Mowgli going to the man village in the end. Who'd want that anyway?

(From The Jungle Book.) I mean... WHYY??

Mowgli, without the Disney template, does what it wants so the plot is just about Mowgli trying to be a wolf, but then having to leave because of Shere Khan's threat, living in the man village, and then saving the day from both Shere Khan, and the evil white hunter who's visiting the village to pretend to be nice while he breaks off elephant's tusks, and beheads wolf puppies. Wow, that degraded a little. But overall, it's considerably more streamlined and has a mildly clearer message, I guess. Neither hit the neat and simple plot and arc of the 67' animation though, of Mowgli searching for a home, wanting it to be the jungle, and finding out it's the village after all. Of course not.

(From Mowgli.) He has to complete a race to be an official member of the pack.

Let's talk about Baloo. Easily the best thing about the animation film, and no one really knows what to do with him now. The Jungle Book makes him a lazy bum who has to learn to care for Mowgli and at first only uses him to get honey for him. Most of the film he's careless and dismissive. And I've never seen Bill Murray be so droll and unfunny. I doubt it's his fault, but it was depressing to see. Serkis' version has Baloo work as a trainer for the wolves, so he's around for longer, but even more useless, and UGLY. Why they thought making Baloo ugly was a good idea I will never fathom. But Serkis does at least makes him expressive. I wonder if they used any motion capture for it. (Yes, I've discovered they did.)

(From Mowgli.) Just look at how weirdly ugly he is. This movie gave all its animals humanoid eyes, too.

The animation is an interesting subject, actually. The Jungle Book is two years old and the animation has already dated a bit, but it's still objectively better than Mowgli, I'd say. But what Mowgli lacks in budget and quality it makes up for in style. The creature characters have an extra kick of personality, like an amalgamation of caricatured cartoon and photo-realism. So animals are naturally more expressive, readable and recognizable, BUT, at the cost of them seeming out-of-place whenever humans other than Mowgli are in the same scenes. Mowgli spends a chunk of time alone in the man village, and it's like a completely separate movie -- and jarring when animals show up again. Still I prefer that to the characterless designs that happened in The Jungle Book.

They totally failed Baloo by making him walk on all fours. (From The Jungle Book.)

What else? Well, all my favorite things about the old animation were missing from the live action. Too silly for them probably, but that little movie lived of its snappy jazz tunes and 60's pop culture. I figured if they were gonna remake it they'd have some particular reason, but it really was just the original -- stripped of everything that made it original, fun, and meaningful. Bagheera was always my favorite and I missed him being that lovable grump. Neither film commits anything atrocious against him though, so that's good, I guess. In the remake I liked how Mowgli would drone on and on about nothing like kids do, and the final action sequence was a creative change. And I liked in Serkis' version how he put a little bit of unique style in there. Favreau's capable of style, but I doubt he was allowed.

If the original 67' animation wasn't a factor, the choice of which is better would be much harder -- but it is, and I can't not consider it. I watched it again after these two to cleanse my palate, and was instantly swept up in its nostalgia, enjoying its quirks, and noticing a few new things that went over my head last time (it's been a while). So I wonder, why do a remake at all? The nostalgia was much stronger rewatching the original, the hand-drawn cartoons will hold up much longer than computer animation, which becomes obsolete as improvements in the art are made, and all the memorable details are in the original, because the remake is afraid to push any boundary, yet is required to adhere to a more serious and realistic tone.

(From The Jungle Book.) "Keep two of the songs, but... sing them badly? I guess??" "Okay sure." -- Pitch meeting.

Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle wins automatically from that perspective. Quality-wise it's an arguable fight, but Mowgli has a different plot and new characters; and the familiar characters are utilized differently. It may not be good, but it earns its existence by being something unique. The Jungle Book (2016) is neither unique nor the best version of its story. It definitely had a bigger budget to work with, but for me, that's worthless without a soul, and that it lost along the way. Mowgli bored me after a while, but did seem to possess a soul, however weak a one.

So, The Jungle Book is worse. But the best isn't Mowgli -- the original, 1967 The Jungle Book is the best. I don't care that it wasn't supposed to be in the competition. As the only version of this story I've seen that I'd even consider recommending, it's the clear winner. And though I struggled to get through these two other films, I'm glad I did, since it inspired me to revisit this charming little classic that can still hold its own.

This is where it's at.

The Jungle Book (2016) -- 2 stars.

Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle -- 2 stars.

The Jungle Book (1967) -- 4 stars.

Black Panther

Spoilers!

After a stellar introduction in Civil War, Chadwick Boseman gets his time in the spotlight as T'Challa, the king of the secretive country of Wakanda, and the legendary Black Panther. But his solo outing is a character downgrade from his brief but compelling turn in the Captain America movie.

Maybe I'm just tired of Marvel movies. I mean, I am tired of Marvel movies. But I don't think that's the only problem here.

I guess the Russo Brothers are to blame. They did too good a job giving T'Challa an outstanding arc, and developing him into a king worthy of his throne. And where do you go from there? Well the movie backtracks a bit, deciding that he's not officially king yet, and the way Wakanda works is basically any Wakandan can challenge his kingship. They do battle, and the winner gets to be king. (Yes, Wakanda is meant to be an advanced civilization hundreds of years ahead of the rest of the world, and yes, whoever is physically strongest gets to be king.)

So T'Challa is challenged, and he wins. Alright, he's king. Then suddenly it's a James Bond movie and T'Challa's upbeat and charming sister Shuri (Letitia Wright) is Q, the tech girl. She outfits the confirmed Black Panther, and he goes out with his love interest Nakia (the incredibly gorgeous Lupita Nyong'o) and his bodyguard Okoye (Danai Gurira) to capture Klaue (Andy Serkis) who just popped up on their radar. But Agent Ross (Martin Freeman) is also there and also wants Klaue. After a pretty cool chase scene T'Challa gets him, but instead of blowing the joint with the prize, he hands Klaue over to Ross, and inevitably, he escapes.

Obviously this is from the 007 portion of the film.

Then the real bad guy Erik Killmonger (Michael B. Jordan) starts his play, and the movie transitions into the plot of The Lion King. Erik is a citizen of Wakanda, the son of T'Challa's uncle, who was killed by T'Challa's father when he turned bad and tried to kill Forest Whitaker. They left Erik behind to grow up American, so now he wants revenge and to be king to prevent other children from having to grow up as he did. He's also stronger than T'Challa. So he challenges, T'Challa accepts because that's what's done -- though he knows who he is and what his intentions are -- and he loses the fight, and gets thrown over a cliff to his apparent death.

Everyone's devastated but they can't do anything about it -- Killmonger is now king fair and square, and no one does anything about it because this is an advanced civilization, and the tradition of kingship revered and respected. Nah, forget that. The Queen Mother (Angela Bassett), Nakia, Shuri, and Ross steal a magic flower that gives the Black Panther powers, and take it to the guy who challenged T'Challa at the beginning of the movie, hoping that he will use the power to overthrow their rightful king. But surprise! T'Challa is there! Some fishermen pulled him out of the river, and he's in a coma but alive. They give him the flower, he gets his power back, they go do battle, he defeats Erik, the end.

Thus Erik is decidedly more compelling than T'Challa. So good for him, but I kinda wanted the film's hero to be compelling too, or else why would we care if he wins?

Cool, so -- what's the problem with this? Look at all the choices T'Challa makes. He accepts all challenges to his throne; to save face he doesn't keep Klaue for himself; he's unconscious for the entire portion of his "exile," and then he's saved by other characters. His character isn't changed when he fights Killmonger the second time, but somehow he still beats him. Basically, he's a doormat, and spends the whole movie being upstaged by more interesting characters. He does skirt round the issue of whether Wakanda should share their technology with the rest of the world, and finally decides that they should, but I was never convinced of his belief in the argument against it. So that message comes across, but it doesn't do much for the character.

Now, I don't have anything against a movie plotting itself after The Lion King. I like The Lion King. The problem I have is that the plot plays out in a way that diminishes the lead character instead of highlighting him as it should. I keep thinking that only if we had followed him over that cliff and if he had been forced to survive, empower himself, and return, all on his own volition, then he would have been so much more compelling. Also, other characters blame him for mistakes that are debatably not his fault, but if he ever blames himself for anything, we never get to know. He never has an inner struggle with himself. This method of character development is extremely ineffective and lazy to me.

SIIIIMBAAA. REMEMBER WHO YOU AAARE.

Practically all the other characters are more compelling than T'Challa, which is as amazing as it is sad, but I'm just going to talk about Erik. See, we feel for him because he was abandoned to a hard life, but he did still murder... well, at least one person. And he wasn't a very nice king. But he's sympathetic, so when he's dying and T'Challa has the technology to save him, he declares that he wants to die, and T'Challa lets him. In order for T'Challa to show strength in that scene he would have saved him no matter what he wanted, but he made an understandable choice because it was compassionate and we feel for Erik. But as a result, the scene -- the movie's most powerfully effective -- serves Erik, not T'Challa. Scene by scene, throughout the film, T'Challa always comes out the least developed, least characterized character.

It seems like the worst criticism you can possibly give this movie is that it's an average Marvel movie, but unfortunately, that's what it is. Wakanda is a visually unusual place with a neat culture, and there are some great design elements, but that's just frosting; something with which every Marvel film differs. The cake underneath is still the same Marvel-flavored production-line vanilla. The CGI is passable if you don't look too close. Action sequences are typical with one or two memorable moments each. Black Panther lacks any distinct fighting style, and doesn't even run fast in the entire movie. Again, Civil War set the bar too high with action sequences that required an amount of effort this film wasn't willing to put in.

Fight scenes in water are automatically cool. Better choreography and filming could have made it amazing.

The dialogue is uninspired. Brought back from the dead, all T'Challa can think to say is "Can I have a blanket?" There are a few solid jokes and I especially liked Shuri's sharp, lighthearted bantering attitude. But, there are at least two dramatic/powerful moments that are ruined by inserting mood-killing dumb jokes. Worst was when a rhino licks Okoye's face. That isn't even funny, and it killed the coolness of that moment for her. Whoever decided that that these moments of bathos should be the Marvel standard of hilarious needs to wake up and smell the audience disengaging from the scene. It works as in-the-moment entertainment every time, but keeps any kind of emotion from having staying power beyond five seconds. 

Black Panther has its entertaining times as it strolls along in a predictable direction. It gets its themes across with admirable subtlety, and boasts a memorable and talented cast. It goes through the motions of ups and downs with fight scenes in the correct places, drama in the correct places, jokes in the "correct" places. It's got cool tech that's convenient to the plot, and world-building that does a fantastic job distracting from a surprisingly lackluster style. There's nothing really wrong with it, except that it's not at all exceptional, as it claims to be. It's average. This is exactly what Marvel is now; well-manufactured, generic entertainment.

I really don't hate this film at all. I'm just bored of Marvel's movie-by-committee shenanigans.

Sometimes I wonder if I'm crazy or heartless, when I don't love well-loved movies like this, but then I watch a film that does engage me, and the quality difference is clear. For whoever this movie does work for, I say good on you; relish it. As for me, I'm not disappointed, and I'm not impressed. I was hoping T'Challa's previously established character of quiet, powerful authority and sleek fighting techniques could be recreated for his solo rein, but the result falls short. Just another competently entertaining superhero blockbuster, Black Panther fits in perfectly with its Marvel peers, exploring another new corner of the broad universe; but has left me about as indifferent as a hunk of Vibranium.