1917

Spoiler-free!

1917 is a WWI picture about two soldiers, Blake and Schofield, who are sent with a message of warning to a neighboring regiment, telling them not to attack lest they fall into a trap and be massacred by the enemy. It's told in real time. And oh yeah, it looks like it's done in one take.

Technical masterpiece, immersive wonder, blah blah blah. Here's the fact of the matter: "one take" films are useless gimmicks -- unless -- they have, like all good films do, a story worth telling, and worth telling in that specific way. This film not only has the right story, led by talented actors playing honest and beautiful characters -- its technical aspect actually supports and strengthens the story instead of being a distraction from it. Now that is impressive.

Directed by Sam Mendes. Co-written with Krysty Wilson-Cairns.

I spent a lot of time since August worrying that the continuous camera view would prevent me from becoming invested -- or even worse that the filmmakers would skimp on things like character and meaning in favor of showing off their technical achievements. I needn't have worried. Films like Children of Men gave me reason to, where the long shots are made to amaze to the detriment of everything else -- but it's clear that Sam Mendes had the opposite mindset. He utilizes the long takes as a storytelling medium rather than artistic ploy, and finally I see the value of the technique.

To see the step-by-step journey of those two men; the small talk, the jokes, the pauses, the contention and friendship, the frantic action, and the quietly harrowing moments, all pressed together into the same continuous space and presented in a realistic pace of time; it brings a unique sense of connection. Not ten minutes go by before you feel like you know them, and when you aren't spoon-fed aspects of their character such as their desires and fears, but instead must find them within the passing details of their actions, the reward for your noticing is all the greater.

The challenge is making it look effortless.

Roger Deakins did the cinematography work, and what stands out about it is that it doesn't stand out. It's not showy and doesn't call attention to the behind-the-scenes challenges that no doubt existed. Achieving its lovely simplicity while also keeping the picture free of any empty space in need of a cut is deceptively hard. One bothersome thing about long takes is when the camera must move from person to person during a conversation or action, and the delay drags the pace down. Not so here. The plot, actors, and cinematography are crafted into a trinity knot; an interweaving dance that has no perceptible beginning or end, lead or follow, but where each element supports -- and leans on -- the others equally.

The pacing is incredible. The rise and fall of tension, action, and emotion all crafted in front of our eyes instead of spliced together in the editing room. Nothing against editing of course, but it's a testament to the dedication and effort put into this work that it thrills and moves on the same level as any other film, when the rhythm of pace is so vital to creating investment and holding attention. They had no room for error, so they were sure to have none. Because what's the point in creating a technical wonder if the story leaves you cold and the characters are paper-thin? Why bother telling a story with masterful command of technique unless it will move an audience through honest meaning?

If this movie had been no more than an impressive technological feat, I wouldn't care two beans about it.

Which brings me to the heart and soul of the film -- Schofield, Blake, and the two young, relative unknowns who play them -- George MacKay and Dean-Charles Chapman. They are supported by the talents of Colin Firth, Andrew Scott, Mark Strong, Benedict Cumberbatch, and Richard Madden; and even in such brief roles these established actors bring great depth and detail. Still it was George and Dean always who held my attention, who I wanted to see more of, and whose two every-men characters I wanted to know better. I've been a fan of George MacKay for a while already, seeking out even his obscure bit-parts to see more of his work, but it was no pre-established bias that made me fall in love with his portrayal of Schofield.

MacKay brings depth and nuance that fills up every moment. He's not overly expressive, more internalized, yet his every thought is readable through a genuine performance that can only come out of a fundamental, and deeply empathetic understanding of the character on the page. He brings both the character, and the film to its fully realized life. Chapman is equally immersed. You can tell they are both there feeling and thinking as their characters rather than putting on a show and pretense. They play off each other as foils to reveal the other's character in the true British fashion of not saying what you really mean, and the subtle detail with which they achieve it makes me eager to be there again and search for further understanding between the lines.

"Be there again." As opposed to "see it again."

I guess there is something to be said for the immersive experience of this film after all. I just think it's important to note what it is that you're being immersed into. A perfectly choreographed dance of actors, sets, and camerawork? That is impressive, yes, but add what that dance means -- the poetry of it, the sense of humanity, the struggle of an individual with individual hopes and cares on full display down to the smallest detail -- and that's when an impressive feat becomes art. And it is that art into which we are being immersed.

It's not the immersive quality in itself, or the mastered technical achievements alone that makes this film remarkable; the immersion is only the path we travel. In the same way that we understand the intangible thoughts and motivations within the characters of Schofield and Blake by reading beyond the tangible surface of their words and actions, so 1917 uses what technological, material language it has at its disposal to express truths of the immaterial human soul that extend beyond what mere words can say.

Shazam!

Spoiler-free!

The DCEU is slowly finding its feet. When Aquaman came out I was hoping they'd grow away from trying to copy the dead-though-profitable Marvel formula, and now Shazam! -- a movie with an exclamation point in its title about a foster kid who is endowed with the power of the gods by a wizard in order to defeat the seven deadly sins incarnate -- is their most on-brand and unique offering yet.

Keep going DCEU! Embrace your qualities! The ridiculousness and the darkness alike! Be yourself!

Unfortunately, unique doesn't necessitate good, and this flick has its share of missteps. But here's the difference between the MCU and the DCEU these days: MCU films are an even flat line of quality; middling, but steady across the board. DCEU films have ups and downs of quality so that it's maybe lower on average than the MCU line, but because of the fluctuation it hits highs from time to time that give it life. Much like a heartbeat. And Shazam! is a perfect example of this heart monitor effect. On the low side there's things like overcooked jokes and boring fight scenes that at best add nothing to the film and at worst take time away from the upper side, where Billy Batson (Asher Angel) is a superhero looking for a family and a purpose and Don't Stop Me Now plays in training montages.

At the top of the highs always seem to be Billy and his foster brother Freddy (Jack Dylan Grazer) and even their other foster siblings too. Billy is reluctant to settle down with them for understandable reasons and I thought it was very cute how uncomfortable the family feels at first and yet settles into a warm place without changing any of the characters. Like the mom and dad's cheesiness. They become endearing naturally. Zachary Levi's super-sized version of Billy is complicated. I liked what he was doing -- he has great comic delivery, was goofy and charming, and then compelling when he needed to be -- but he didn't always match Billy's character in the way Asher portrays him. The kid version acts more maturely than the adult, and the inconsistency bothered me.

If only Asher had more goofy scenes and Zac had more serious scenes. Just to match them more closely.

I also enjoyed Mark Strong's villain for the most part. They took time to develop him into an evil place, but once they got him there, they let him fall through the cracks. Still he is Mark Strong; so he's consistently cool. His horde of demon-eyed monsters does body-slam the film's tone into surprising darkness a few times -- but I didn't mind the tonal shifts in themselves; the problem was that the shifting was clunky and jarring, not that darkness was inappropriate in the story. A good balance of seriousness and goofiness can be very effective, but this movie doesn't balance them so much as it's continually trading one for the other. Whenever it brings both sides together it works much better and fulfills its purpose of bringing stakes to the plot.

I guess this movie has a balancing problem overall. It has good comedy and it has great drama, but it doesn't know how to make it meld or when to stop pushing. The first act was conducive to the comedy and that's where the best stuff is. Then the third act naturally needs more of the drama, and again, it delivers. But the second act is a mess in trying to transition the plot into the big showdown, while also spending every possible second in Big-style "superhero" stuff, where Billy is just Zac in nerdy goof-off mode. This might've been fixed by having Billy and Mark Strong meet sooner, but it's hard to tell. There was an awful lot of wasting time going that I would've loved to see used for more streamlined character-furthering purposes.

Did I say that Jack Grazer was a highlight? Because he was. Also, Adam Brody shows up for a little while and I enjoyed that very much.

The fight sequences were mostly DCEU-patented punching and slamming and flying around without much repercussion. But emphasis on mostly. In the end they always seem to come around to a compelling or smart conclusion, so all the CGI punching is just more empty entertainment padding. I get why there's so much of it, but I liked the characters, story, and important moments so much that I kept wishing for more of that, even if it meant shorter battle sequences. Never been much for those anyway. But I'd much rather wait out a quick fight scene or two than have the whole movie be a cold product, and since Shazam! delivers on the heart consistently throughout, I was never left wanting for long.

It's kind of a mess, throwing everything and the kitchen sink into a bottle and flossing to shake. A lot of it doesn't mix and it often gets distracted by how much fun it's having. It is fun though; charming, sweet, funny, freaky as all get out, mythical and magical yet grounded, and populated with lovable characters. It has all the pieces, and just doesn't know exactly how to assemble them in the most efficient and effective way. But it never forgets about the heart -- and that's what makes it super. SHAZAM!

Upcoming Movie Roundup - April

Alrighty! In March I saw Captain Marvel as expected. Found it pretty unremarkable (review here). And sadly didn't get to see The Kid which I was hoping to be able to. I did watch Triple Frontier because it was on Netflix, and it was good enough to make an enjoyable watch, but I didn't have anything to say about it, so I didn't review it.

The biggest surprise though, was that I went to see Five Feet Apart, and not only that, but I really, really liked it! And not just in a typical teen romance kind of way. It was good in ways that surpassed the genre. But it also fit the genre too. It was a great balance of cheesy romance, real emotions, and informative of Cystic Fibrosis that worked without any element stepping on the toes of the others. (review here!)

I'm still annoyingly interested in seeing Dumbo too, but no one want to see it with me. Sad days. Anyway, April is shaping up nicely! If all goes to plan more than a few of these movies should be a good time! So what looks good to you?


Shazam!
April 5th; PG-13
My most anticipated of the month is first! Zachary Levi, Jack Grazer, Mark Strong... I haven't seen the kid who plays Billy before, but I bet he's good too. I admit, the trailer got tiresome when it first came out, but since my excitement has steadily been building regardless, and all the positive early reviews are only making me more pumped! The idea of making Big into a superhero movie seems like a ton of fun, and I'm looking forward to a superhero flick that isn't a boring slog for a nice change. The DCEU has had its downs but it's capable of great heights too, and I get a feeling this one's going up!




Pet Sematary
April 5th; R
I dunno, maybe someday, but definitely not in theaters. Honestly, I'm not over Hereditary yet, and need some more time before seeing legit scary movies again. Or maybe the way to fix it IS to see some better scary movies! I heard somewhere this is the scariest Stephen King adaptation yet. It does look good, and generally my speed. Jason Clarke and Amy Seimetz (of Stranger Things) star.




High Life
April 5th(limited); R
Robert Pattinson and his daughter, Mia Goth and other what? Criminals? In space? I keep an eye on all scifi movies, so this is here. But somehow, I get the impression that it isn't exactly what I'd want it to be. Looks pretty though.




The Wind
April 5th(limited); R
Another horror movie, and this one seems more supernatural, which isn't so much my horror speed. I do like the lonely setting and the richly low-key tone though. Will consider, if the opportunity arises...




Unicorn Store
April 5th; NR
Brie Larson's directorial debut, on Netflix, with her Captain Marvel buddy Samuel L. Jackson too. I feel like I'll definitely watch this, mostly out of curiosity and because it's on Netflix so it's free. The plot doesn't instantly appeal to me, but it could be interesting. Or it could be frilly nonsense. I guess we'll find out!!




Hellboy
April 12th; R
I just recently realized that my liking the Guillermo Del Toro version is kinda an "unpopular opinion" or maybe the people who didn't like it are just being extra hard on it in anticipation of liking this one more. I mean, it's rated R, so what could go wrong, right?? Well, that sounds fine to me, but I honestly didn't notice anything lacking in Del Toro's, and this one won't have his eye for visuals or practical effects. It's looks CGI, and less than spectacular. Also seems a bit cheap script-wise with several lame jokes in the trailer, but Del Toro's was no masterpiece on that score either. It does have David Harbour... in place of Ron Perlman. Seems like a toss-up there. If it gets good reviews though, I wouldn't be surprised if I went to see it.




Missing Link
April 12th(limited); PG
It's stop-motion animation. I don't care what it's about: I'll see it. But it's about some Bigfoot-type creature, apparently. And the cast is great: Hugh Jackman, Zoe Saldana, Timothy Olyphant, Emma Thompson, Zach Galifianikis, and Stephen Fry. Doesn't look like the best stop-motion ever, with the dumb jokes, but like I said. I'll give it a chance!




Teen Spirit
April 12th; PG-13
This is like the kind of movie that I'll always be interested in but never actually buckle down and watch. It looks great, I love the neon and the style... but plot-wise, there's this dread that it'll go the way it appears to be that might keep me away. Elle Fanning tries to become a teen music idol.




Stockholm
April 12th(limited); R
Yeah, I guess it looks pretty funny in a pleasantly dark way, and it's got Ethan Hawke, Mark Strong, and Noomi Rapace. I guess this is the real-life situation that started the whole Stockholm syndrome thing? All I know is that this is the sort of thing I might or might not ever watch, depending on if the mood strikes and there's nothing better to do.




The Perfect Date
April 12th; NR
Hahaha, yes, please! Noah Centineo rents himself out to high school girls in need of chaperones. So... like... a PG escort service. The premise alone makes me laugh. It's Netflix, it's a teen rom-com. You know I'm on board.




The Man Who Killed Don Quixote
April 19th(limited); NR
Is this for real? Is it actually coming? I feel like this movie doesn't actually exist and we're just getting duped right now. The biggest April Fools joke of all time or something. I know it has mixed reviews at the moment but I can't help being absolutely stoked -- it just looks exactly like my kind of deal. Jonathan Price, Adam Driver and Stellan Skarsgård. Terry Gilliam craziness hopefully. I don't know if and don't expect it to come to my theater, but I will definitely be seeing it at my earliest opportunity!




Under the Silver Lake
April 19th(limited); R
Another potential April Fools joke. This one I had in my upcoming post back in June of last year and I think it might actually be coming for real this time. Andrew Garfield and Riley Keough. At this point it's mostly the curiosity that's keeping me from forgetting it entirely.




Avengers: Endgame
April 26th; PG-13
Le sigh. My brother hasn't bought our tickets yet, but undoubtedly I'll be there opening night. I'm not dreading it, but I'm not excited either. There are things I think seem promising that I'll likely enjoy and other things that will almost certainly irritate me. At this point, it's par for the course with the MCU. The biggest event movie of the modern era, and my hype level is a resounding zero. Let's get it over with, so we can get back to Spider-Man.




Body at Brighton Rock
April 26th(limited); NR
This looks like quite the interesting little indie thriller. Obviously pretty cheap, but has a very solid premise of an inexperienced park ranger finding a body and having to wait with it for help to arrive. If they do the story well it won't matter at all if the production is cheap.

Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day

Some Spoilers.

Guinevere Pettigrew is having a hard time as a governess in late 1930's London. Maybe it's her unappealing appearance, maybe it's her mildly abrasive and awkward personality, but no one will keep her on, and nothing is going right for her. So when she steals a clients address and accidentally becomes the social secretary of a vibrant, up-and-coming American actress, she lets this slight increase in fortune propel her through an increasingly eventful and increasingly crazy day.

Albeit slightly unwillingly at first.

Based on the 1938 novel by Winifred Watson, this film plays out like a play, with its heart and wit coming from interaction and dialogue. The plot is driven by character, and all the characters have that larger-than-life vitality to them that comes so often from the stage. The excellent Frances McDormand leads the talented cast, and doesn't let anyone overshadow her, though Miss Pettigrew is that meek and invisible type of character, and is easily overshadowed within the story. I love her expressions; subtle, but extremely expressive, so we always knows what's going on in her mind, and the energy she exudes -- even as a tired and worn out character -- keeps everything effortlessly fresh and bright.

Amy Adams as Delysia, is hilarious, playing dumb, which she rarely does now, but is exceptionally good at. But Delysia is a particularly good role for her, because as the second main character, she also gets to go deep within that dumbness. Delysia is a world-wise girl, and that perceptiveness taught her to model herself as a classic empty beauty. Amy hits that balance in just the right spot. Her frienemy Edythe is played by Shirley Henderson, who if you don't recognize the name, you almost certain will the face. She makes an excellent villainess, with the striking poise of high fashion and the casual sadness of a person so steeped in their villainy that they've given up on happiness altogether, and now only live to make others just as miserable as they are.

So makeover stories aren't strictly high school after all...

Delysia, as an attractive and loose young lady, has three suitors to choose from. The first is Mark Strong as Nick. Nick owns the nightclub that she sings at and the apartment she lives in. He's rich, but clearly a villain. Mark Strong is of course, awesome, since he's always awesome, and without much time, makes Nick the exact stereotype you'd expect him to be. The second suitor is Phil played by Tom Payne. A smashing young man who talks like the perfect 1930's British airhead. He reminds me so much of  Edmund Sparkler of Little Dorrit. His father runs the theatre that Delysia is vying for a part at. He's likable, for the most part, but certainly not the character to root for.

That honor belongs to the third man, Michael, played by Lee Pace. (Of course.) Michael is the pianist who accompanies Delysia at Nick's nightclub; practically penniless, but actually loves her enough to put up with all her wishy-washy ways. None of the male characters get a chance to rise above classic stereotypes, so Michael is the upright guy who watches the lady with melancholy and longing until his passion and devotion wins the day. And if there's no deeper twist to the character, it's at least a case of perfect casting, because no one does melancholy and passionate romance like Lee Pace. His charm and sad expressions give the character everything he needs.

Who could resist?

Anyway, the men are really all secondary. This story is about the two ladies, and the story could hardly be about Miss Pettigrew if while Delysia is deciding between three men she doesn't have any! The man whose eye she catches is Joe, played by Ciarán Hinds. The rich man who rules the fashion world, but hasn't been swallowed alive by it yet, and is kind and genuine and gentlemanly. He's engaged to Edythe for some strange reason, and that creates some nice drama for Miss Pettigrew. It doesn't take much to figure out where everything ends here, but the fun really is in the getting there. With all the charming characters, and an equally charming script, it would be a bigger feat if the film doesn't charm you, rather than does. The late thirties fashion is lovely and the air of the era is present and practically overflowing off the screen.

Charming and light romance in its natural habitat.

If I wanted to nitpick, I'd say that nothing this story does is particularly bold or extreme, and if you don't have a reason to stay you may find yourself growing bored. The actors, their characters, and the innate charm the flows through everything are the best reasons to stay, but artistically, from a film-making perspective, there's not much that stands out. However since this is the type of story that is meant to entertain, and that it does absolutely, those out to be entertained and enjoy themselves certainly should be by Miss Pettigrew's eventful, life changing day of living.

Anna

This review is Spoiler-free.

Memory detectives. They are a special kind of psychic that with the use of special technology and the right formal setting can enter into a subjects memories and witness events they never saw for themselves. In this world, the ability hasn't quite been accepted by the whole world as an absolute way to discover the truth, but it often plays a useful part.

John (Mark Strong) was one of the more talented viewers, until his personal memories began to interfere with his work, and puts his life at risk. He goes on leave, but slowly runs and of money and must return. His boss (Brian Cox) gives him a job that should be easy -- a rich teenage girl named Anna (Taissa Farmiga) is on a hunger strike and her parents hire John to use his skill as a therapeutic way to convince her to eat. But he quickly discovers that this job is nowhere near as simple as it seemed, and the more he gets to know his patient and searches through the brilliant but disturbed girl's memories, the more it seems that something sinister is afoot.

There are four things about this film that make it memorable.

Number one: Mark Strong. I've always enjoyed seeing him in movies. He shows up quite often, and always does a great job, keeping that movie's energy and interest going while it's not focused on the hero -- because he's usually in a supporting role or a villain. Here, he's the lead, and it was really great to see him pull the movie almost singlehandedly, and so effortlessly. He has a fantastic, mesmerizing screen presence (that is perfectly complemented by this film's tone) and his character of John was simultaneously an endearing and hardcore type hero. I totally and thoroughly enjoyed watching him take the leading role and will now be keeping an eye out for more films were he does the same.

Number two: Speaking of mesmerizing -- Taissa Farmiga hits a striking balance of coldness and mysterious depth as Anna. I've never seen her in anything else, and I was impressed by her performance in the very complicated role she had. She played off of Mark Strong very well and their scenes together are quite good. The kind of character Anna is is a hard one to portray on screen; where the character is more in her thoughts than it is in what she says, yet she hides her thoughts, keeping them from surfacing via facial expressions. It's a hard conundrum to get past, and Farmiga handles it well, always coming across the way she's supposed to, and only once or twice reminding me that she was acting.

Number three: The suspense aspect. This movie is one of the more effective and pure-bred suspense films I've seen, and it really worked on me. I spent the whole movie wondering, thrilled, and tensely waiting for the conclusion while the plot glided easily along in a classic slow build-up to the action-based and intense climax. I watched the movie twice (more on that in a second) and while I did still enjoy and appreciate the suspense aspect the second time as well, the not knowing where the plot was building to was what engaged me most the first time. It was the most involving point of the whole film and made for a great viewing experience.

Number four: This is a memorable thing that may not be totally a good thing -- the mystery side of things. This is why I watched the movie again so fast. I had a lot of questions after the first viewing and wanted to see if I could piece the open ends together. I did to my own satisfaction, but I had to use simple opinions and guesswork; the movie leaves a lot of the mystery unexplained. Not that it isn't explainable, just that the film never bothers to. So there are two sides to look at for this. On one hand, loose ends bother me as it seems like laziness, but on the other, the main point of the ending was made clear, and explaining all those side ends may have taken away from the impact and artistry of the film. Plus, it made me think, and that's never a bad thing.

Recommendation-wise, I only have one reservation; that the movie earns its R in one scene with quick flashes of nude photos. Anna is an ideal movie for people who enjoy giving their brains a workout while being entertained, and even more ideal for people who appreciate the subtlety of suspense. Farmiga and Anna's intriguing character add a lot, but ultimately this is Mark Strong's movie. He is both the focus of the film and the thing that hold it all together, with his enigmatically captivating and commanding presence.

Kingsman: The Secret Service

Spoilers are marked.
I watched this movie using VidAngel, so thanks Daniel, for recommending it!

The spy genre gets the gleefully self-aware treatment when gentleman spy Harry aka, Galahad (Colin Firth) recruits a trouble-making young man, Eggsy (Taron Egerton) to follow in his father's footsteps and train to become a spy for the Kingsman -- a very posh secret agency whose members go by knights of the round table code names, and save the world with graceful violence, in the best suits a tailor can cut, before nobly fading away again without receiving any thanks or recognition.

Kingsman is basically every spy-movie cliche made extreme and put into a film. On purpose. And it's great!

Act one takes its time and gives us a great introduction to said trouble-maker-soon-to-be-hero. Eggsy's father died saving Galahad's life, and Eggsy seems to have inherited that nobility. But his side of mischief is a double helping -- he's very light-fingered for one, plus has a careless, impulsive attitude and never considers anything before jumping straight into trouble for no real reason at all. He's the ideal kind of lead for this movie, exuding heaps of energy and charm with a matter-of-fact edgy side. Taron Egerton's breakout role, and no surprise; besides being quite the looker, his screen presence is sparkling, and effortlessly draws you in to care for this character. And the script gave a pleasantly unexpected amount of depth to Eggsy's troubles that together with Egerton's characterization and performance made for a very endearing hero very fast.

So when the second act starts and Eggsy must compete with a large bunch of Kingsman recruits who also happen to be mostly made up of total snobs, I was even more involved in the training than I was the real stuff once that really got going. This was the height of the movie's fun factor. I mean, putting a bunch of kids in a competition and asking us to root for the fish-out-of-water underdog isn't the most original thing ever, and not naturally conducive to being uniquely entertaining, but somehow it totally was. The tests they are given for training were all great fun, because they were the sort of cheesy, crazy things that old spy movies were incapable of doing, and newer movies with the right budget never do for fear of being unoriginal.

Kingsman didn't care about being unoriginal, because it made everything unoriginal feel original anyway!

The action was quite stylized in an unusual way and was used quite impressively. The best fight scene was the one in the pub near the beginning, where you can see the style play out the most. The choreography is top-notch, fun and exciting and everything the movie promises. The camera lets you see everything, not by staying still and just avoiding the dreaded shaky-cam, but by actually following the action in order to enhance it. It pans down along with someone being smashed into the floor, zooms in and out crazily and moves in unexpected twists and arcs, and it all works beautifully. Later it's toned back a little but the final battle still had plenty of coolness going for it.

The worst of the action comes along with a few other downfalls, right around the third acts beginning, when training is over, and the saving the world part starts up. It all starts at the quaint little church in Kentucky where Christians are represented as violent crazed extremists who in reality would be a cult. So I started out this scene with my eyebrow raised, and then the film began to fall apart and lose me on an artistic level as well. The length of the violence there is far, far, too long, not serving any purpose to the plot or to our entertainment. (Spoilers!) Then, it sets up Galahad for his death -- which I did like how they took the opportunity to have some fun thumbing their nose at the spy movie cliche, but the result of it was Galahad dying very anticlimactically, with, for me a least, a lot left wanting in his relationship with Eggsy. I'm not sure if or how they could have done it better, but sadly that was the beginning of a slight but noticeable downhill slope.

Quite a good cast. I never mention it, but Michael Caine is in it too. And Jack Davenport. And Mark Hamill!

The film evens out again for a while as Mark Strong's agent Merlin takes over for Galahad as leader, and he, Eggsy, and Roxy (Sophie Cookson) another new recruit take on Samuel L. Jackson's lisping, queasy-stomached super villain intent on saving the Earth by destroying most of its inhabitants. They get into a bit of a groove -- Mark Strong does wonders for anything he's in -- but after a while it teeters downward again as you realize that most of the deeper meaning behind all the vibrancy and fun died with Galahad. Eggsy still needs to save his mother and baby sister along with the rest of the population, but there's no real urgency present. Not like when he and five other recruits were falling and one had a sabotaged parachute. That was urgent -- but that was in the second act.

Another cliche is smashed when Samuel L. Jackson's humanity-destroying device is actually set off, instead of being stopped just in time. The device causes people to want to kill each other, and that commences while Eggsy has the final showdown with Swords-For-Legs Girl (Sofia Boutella) which was cool, but when he stands gloating over her dead body while millions of people kill each other and has to be reminded my Merlin to go turn it off -- that was the film's low point. Not right for his character either. (End of Spoilers.) I loved that they wanted to have fun turning the cliches around in such a fun, self-aware way. They even slyly broke the fourth wall two or three times with cheeky brilliance. But a film needs to have meaning, and by the end of Kingsman, they had forgotten and left behind most of the meaning they began with.

Waiter: "Would sir care for a drink?" Eggsy: "Martini. Gin, not vodka, obviously. Stirred for ten seconds while glancing at an unopened bottle of Vermouth." Brilliant.

Still, overall, Kingsman has more depth and more things to involve you than your average gleefully violent, casually profane R-rated action comedy. It has... manners. And what with such a charming lead, the refined, sophisticated, bitingly sharp humor, a plot that is deceptively basic, involving you by just plain being good, and the truly original and outstanding action, this is a breezy, fun and stylin' spy flick that deserves its place on the ultra-cool team.

Upcoming Movie Roundup - February

Last month my personal predictions were accurate: Agent Carter wound up being just as fun as I expected and saved January from being a complete let-down in the entertainment department. Here I review episodes 1 and 2, 3 here, and 4 here. February will be happily filled with them as well as the last four air! But on the film side, February is looking up from its preceding month with a few movies with some potential, and one surprise must-see!

Seventh Son
Feb 6th; PG-13
Another one of those adaptations from a YA novel. This one isn't dystopian though, so that's different. It's more Eragon, with a magic-filled medieval setting. And there's a heavy dose of the creepy sorcery. Ben Barnes plays the lead, the seventh son of a seventh son, which makes him very important somehow, and Jeff Bridges is his mentor, who must train him to-- I don't know, fight evil... that part isn't very clear. Julianne Moore is the villain. I don't imagine this will be good at all, and though the trailer wants you to think "300" or "Godzilla," it looks more like "Clash of the Titans" except even more weird and even less popular.




Jupiter Ascending
Feb 6th; PG-13
Not to be confused with Mercury Rising. This movie can be completely balanced with pros and cons, see: Pro; it has Sean Bean (and I'm very curious to see how his death scene turns out) -- con; it has Channing Tatum. It has Eddie Redamayne (and he's doing a cool "whisper every line" thing) -- it has Mila Kunis (and she wears an awful lot of makeup for her "degrading, unglamorous job"). It has James D'Arcy -- apparently; 3 trailers and five days til release and I've seen no evidence of his existence in this movie. It has super cool special effects -- that will undoubtedly smother any trace of a compelling plot line. With so many extending action sequences, at least we won't have to sit through too much of the un-compelling and weird plot -- who am I kidding, we definitely are. And thus the balance tips.




Kingsman: The Secret Service
Feb 13th; R
I have been excitedly anticipating this movie since I first saw the trailer sometime in September. Or, rather I should say "had" been. I only learned a couple weeks ago of it's R rating, which I seriously will never understand because there's no way it needs all that to be fun or funny, because the trailer looks awesomely fun and hilariously funny, and it's totally clean! Anyway, the plot is kinda like Spy Kids for adults... or Johnny English minus the imbecile... or X-Men without the superpowers... Ooo! Or James Bond with lots of comedy! Newcomer Taron Egerton stars as one of many college-age kids selected to train to become a Kingsman (super-cool gentleman spy). Colin Firth is the agent who sees his potential, and Samuel L. Jackson is the baddie. Michael Caine and Mark Strong are also there.




The Last Five Years
Feb 13th; PG-13
With February always comes the slew of romance movies, and this one stands a little bit out from the rest by being musical, based on a stage musical. It's about a couple's five-year-long romance, and is formatted interestingly; the girl's (Anna Kendrick) point of view is retrospective, starting at the end of their marriage (spoilers, much?) and ending when they meet; and the guy's (Jeremy Jordan, of Broadway fame) goes normally, from beginning to end. (So it's a bit like The Doctor and River, except, not at all... I'm probably just confusing you... I'm confused too.) With Anna Kendrick, and Jeremy Jordan, I'm sure the music and singing will be great, but there's not much else here to really interest.




Old Fashioned
Feb 13th; PG-13
This is the perfect example of why I do this Upcoming Movies post at all, because I doubt I would have ever noticed this little movie flying under the radar of other Valentine fare. It's an indie rom-com about a guy, who, after abandoning his wild and secular lifestyle meets a girl he's interested in, and doesn't know how his new moral self should handle it -- so they try an old fashioned courtship. It's being marketed as an alternative and polar opposite to 50 Shades of Grey, which is just brilliant. I'd want to see it just because of that, but I want to see it anyway -- and definitely I will. With it's limited release I might not get an opportunity for a while, but I will at my earliest convenience. The premise is great, and if it's done well, the movie could be great too.



Does February hold any promise for your entertainment?

Stardust

Sometimes it seems that the best, most original premises for stories can be summarized in a single question. For instance, the question, "what if we aren't alone in the universe?" has sparked countless alien movies, and then "what if aliens aren't evil?" sparked countless more. The more simple and unique the question, the more interesting and unique the story could be.

So take this one; "what if the stars gaze back?" Simple and unique to be sure, and also a bit quirky -- it would be right if its story was quirky too, It's imaginative, so a fantasy, with magic and sword-fighting, and flying pirates and witches. It might be a bit cheesy, but it would also be funny, exciting and sweet.

Stardust is all these things and more. Stars do gaze back, and what more, sometimes they accidentally fall. (Shooting stars!) One star named Yvaine (Claire Danes) is unceremoniously knocked from the sky by a large gemstone set in a necklace when the dying king of the realm of Stormhold sends it flying into the night, telling his three sons that one must retrieve it to claim the throne. As the star falls, three sister witches see it, and one goes out to find it, so they can consume the heart and be young again.

"A toast! To the new king of Stormhold... whichever of you fine fellows it may be."

In 1800's England, in a small village called Wall (so named for a mysterious wall on its border), a boy named Tristan (Charlie Cox) is trying to win the hand of his beloved, the beauty of the town, Victoria (Sienna Miller). They see the star falling, and make an agreement; if Tristan can bring the star back to Victoria by her birthday in one week, she will marry him; if not, she'll marry that pompous rich fellow Humphrey (Henry Cavill, and almost totally, hilariously, unrecognizable). Tristan is determined to succeed, but no one ever crosses The Wall. Once that little hurdle is jumped there's an unexpected problem; Tristan had no idea the star would be... a woman. And she's not too keen a being a birthday gift.

Obviously, she needs some convincing. Maybe bribery.

If there is one movie that just screams "high-flying, full-throttle, incredibly fun fantasy adventure" it would be this movie. The story, based on a novel by Neil Gaiman, is wonderfully complex for a lighthearted fantasy, with basically three plot lines running simultaneously, and intersecting every now and then. Tristan and Yvaine, on a time limit, hurrying towards the wall, the witch Lamia, Michelle Pfeiffer, growing older and uglier the more magic she uses, in pursuit of the stars heart, and the youngest prince, Septimus, Mark Strong, a likable bad guy if there ever was one, in pursuit of her necklace. There's also a pirate with a fearsome reputation, Robert De Niro being unpredictable, a kidnapped princess, ghosts for comic relief, and what fairy tale would be complete without a unicorn?

Oh no! Not... unicorns!! Just kidding, everyone knows unicorns are nice!

Acting wise there's nothing special, in spite of the all-star cast, which lesser-known Charlie Cox as the unlikely, awkward hero holds up against very well. Claire Danes' sarcastic heavenly being is a little strange at first, but she grows on you. The two together don't click as well as they should, which is slightly disappointing, especially when I realized that a sweet moment between girl and mouse was just as romantic as a sweet moment between girl and boy. Still, I hardly noticed that enough to care; there's so much more to occupy your thoughts.

A star learns to waltz...

The quirky plot unfolds briskly and smoothly from beginning to end. Aided by active, sweeping cinematography moving from place to place and scene to scene seamlessly, tying everything together with style. It also showcases some beautiful, middle-earth-like locations, and some epic, magical sets. The humor is hit and miss, and as the rating says, some of it is mildly rude, but it is usually at least mildly amusing, and sometimes it hits and is downright funny. The cheesy-ness is sometimes laughable as well, but in a purposeful way. (Self-deprecating humor makes everyone like you!) The action is swashbuckling at times and magic-y at times, and is good and exciting all the time.

Yikes.

Stardust is the practically the definition of it genre. Yet I consider it to be extremely original. It succeeds in telling a fun adventure story and in making it funny, romantic and fantastic. It's very light fare -- never going deeper than about, oh, two inches, but it lightheartedness also makes it endearing... and cheesy. Still it has its "serious" moments and its fantasy action and violence. It may go overboard, but it does it whole-heartedly, making you want to join in on the craziness, the fun, the giddy enthusiasm. And with a unique, memorable story is told this well, I have nothing else to say except jump on in.

Number ten!

The Sherlock Holmes of Today - Part I

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.

Next up: A Sherlock Holmes television show special. Stay tuned.