Top Gun: Maverick

Spoiler-free!

The phenomenon of Top Gun: Maverick isn't that it's an exceptionally good high quality summer blockbuster—it's simply that high quality summer blockbusters haven't existed for about five years. (And even then they were a dying breed.) Likewise, the magic of Top Gun: Maverick isn't that it's the greatest gap-sequel ever made—it's more that no other sequel made so many years later has ever been able to boast of having a worthy reason to exist.

And yet here we are, our socks knocked off by another one of Tom Cruise's filmmaking efforts. He may be the last person making movies who actually cares whether his products are entertaining or not. Here, he returns as his original character, Pete Mitchell, callsign Maverick, assigned back to Top Gun to train an elite batch of aviators for a specific, daring, and possibly deadly mission. One candidate, callsign Rooster (Miles Teller) is the son of Maverick's old co-pilot who died in the first movie, and tension rises between them as Maverick struggles between his job of picking the best team to risk their lives on the mission, and his own personal mission of protecting his friend's son.

It's a pretty sweet set up, ripe for drama, but not so complex as to take away time from the entertainment of training exercises, which range from aerial dogfights to playing football on the beach. For a side plot, Maverick takes up a romance with a former flame, Jennifer Connelly, and before you know it, I was wishing Tom Cruise wasn't in the movie so much—because the one thing left unfulfilled is the dynamics between the candidates. The loose definition of their unique personalities made me wish for more. And then Hangman, the Iceman equivalent, and his antagonistic relationship with Rooster is rendered pointless by Rooster's more convincing antagonistic relationship to Maverick—but even that is put on hold for too long. When it comes due is when the movie starts to really shine.

I would have liked the movie to split time between Maverick's antics and what the candidates are up to when he's not around, but at the same time I get it. It's the Tom Cruise show because the film wouldn't exist without him. You can't begrudge him taking the spotlight, or deny that everything he does is entertaining. I just can't help but wonder if it would have been better had it been more balanced. Just a tad. In that light, it was the third act that sold the film for me. When everything comes to a head, and it starts to feel like an equal character match-up between Maverick and Rooster. This section also has most of the thrilling flying action (on which a Tom Cruise movie will never, ever skimp) and the most real stakes and tension as they take on the deadly mission.

The whole movie builds to this point, and it doesn't disappoint in any aspect. It has the realness that Cruise is known for to make you feel it—the thrill that can only come when there's also a notable lack of CGI. I got a big kick out of seeing the actors react while inside actual, actually flying fighter jets. And because everything was set up previously, the whole act is a neat series of payoff after payoff after payoff, each one more satisfying and rewarding than the last. Character drama and fun action mix together to splendid results, and an old-fashioned magic of storytelling comes to life. It's all so simple and won me over so easily that I wonder how the art was ever lost in the first place.

So, if Top Gun: Maverick is great and a phenomenon just because every other modern film is bad and worthless, that doesn't change the fact. It has the magic, and it is a phenomenon. It's dastardly entertaining in ways I thought films had forgotten to be. Not exceptional in the big picture, but certainly exceptional for its time. My hope is this: that this rare blockbuster isn't a throwback to good and entertaining movies at all—but the instigator of a resurgence.

Allegiant

The story drags itself onward, but doesn't quite reach the end with this third installment to the Divergent movie series. The biggest surprise for me is how this film is actually better than Insurgent in many ways. It's worse in some ways too, but I thought it would be all terrible.

Um. Did Tris just become Jeanine??? She looks exactly like her, and is about as relevant as her too -- and Jeanine is dead.

I actually gave a positive review to Insurgent after seeing it in theaters, and then promptly forgot it existed, which made me rethink that score. Insurgent somehow did a better job assimilating the appearance a decent quality movie while showing us nothing interesting or memorable. Maybe it reminds us of Divergent, which, whatever its flaws, was at least entertaining and a clean, straightforward adaptation of its source material.

But Allegiant strays even further from both the source, and the story's original starting place. It does away with the Factions -- the highlight of interest for the series -- and starts feeding us things about "pure" and "damaged" like that's what the story had been about the whole time. Then it takes us out of the dystopian walls of the crumbled Chicago into an otherworldly orange and red landscape and shiny floating futuristic cities. The only thing that connects this film with Divergent is that middle movie, which I've seen twice now and I still can't remember what the actual heck happened in that film.

The movie started with the same group on the run who were on the run at the beginning of Insurgent. With a handful changes they could have skipped that movie altogether!

In that way Allegiant feels even less like a Divergent Series movie, but in straying so far away, it stumbled on something that the last movie lacked in spades: memorability. A handful of things stick out as memorable, and, granted, some are not positive, but giving the movie some unique points made it more enjoyable than expected -- in spite of decidedly worse scripting and acting, and a random plot that goes nowhere. Of course I said Insurgent was memorable too at some point, so maybe a couple days from now I'll have forgotten about this one too. Here are a few reasons why I think I'll remember:

Bad special effects. With recalling the striking red landscape outside the wall comes the image of our heroes (and anti-hero Peter!) floating around in those transport bubbles. That was hilariously, awfully, painfully bad. The futuristic city had cool design elements to it, but most of the time when it was being shown along with characters, green screens and CGI was obvious and cheap. It was weird, like a cool scifi world had been created somewhere, and then all the characters from Divergent jumped over from a different universe and began to populate it, but don't fit there because they're worn out and dry. That feeling was enhanced by the city residents knowing who they are -- like they were movie characters brought into reality.

This is concept art. Someone obviously worked hard to make this place different and interesting. Then they tried to populate it with dead characters for cheap.

And like they would in reality, these characters begin to crumble in front of their new backdrop. Like in the book, Tris' character fades away, while Four finds himself the main character in every actually compelling scene. Hardly anyone is trying at this point, but Shailene Woodley isn't even pretending. She stares, she delivers her lines, and she's forgotten. Theo James manages to keep whatever interest he had from before, and could have carried the whole film decently on his own if he had been allowed, but half the movie still focused on stale Tris. Poor Miles Teller yet again makes the most of what he has, and all I can say is congrats dude on surviving these movies with your career intact. I can hardly believe how bad Ansel Elgort is, especially after being so enjoyable and capable in Baby Driver. Every scene Caleb is in is physically painful to watch.

I'm glad I waited until after I saw IT to watch this though, because Bill Skarsgård is in this, and he amused me to no end by making subtle faces in the background that reminded me of Pennywise. And maybe I only noticed because I was paying attention to him, but his character Matthew was a decently interesting character. I know he was in the book, but I swear I don't remember a thing he did, so the mystery of whether he was good or bad worked on me. Plus the bit he's a part of where Four tells him to tell David (Jeff Daniels) that Four left him behind so that Tris would know he was lying and find out the truth -- well, if I forget the rest of the movie I think I'll at least remember that bit.

Also the bit when he smiles at Tris while disappearing behind elevator doors. Made me laugh.

I just remembered that there's a whole plotline with a memory-erasing serum. I keep talking about forgetting and remembering, but didn't remember that element until right now. The serum is used for the movie's climax where it works terribly and makes no impression. And when it ends, there's no real conclusion in sight, because the final film has been abandoned. Yep, not even cool art design, rabid fans, or a freaking Skarsgård can save this directionless rust-bucket. Now my spirit is with Peter, jumping around and waving in front of the invisible gate, begging to please please pretty please be let back into the super cool futuristic city -- where characters resemble real people instead of dead horses.

Upcoming Movie Roundup - November

In October I went to the movies! I saw The Magnificent Seven, which was a nice wrap-up for the summer, and now it's November already and the season of Oscar hopefuls is starting! Lots of movies this month, and lots that look really good! Which ones have your attention?


Doctor Strange
Nov 3rd; PG-13
Benedict Cumberbatch takes his turn as Marvel hero as the Marvel universe officially expands into the realm of magic. I'm expecting good things. This movie doesn't have the kind of hype that surrounds some Marvel films like sequels and team-ups, but I always look forward to the introduction films and what they'll bring to the table that's new. And Doctor Strange more than most seems to be coming from its own place and is (as of yet) unconnected with the rest of Marvel. The trailers look good and promise plenty of weirdness, and Cumberbatch appears to be in fine form as the new hero. He's joined by Tilda Swinton, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Mads Mikkelsen and Rachel McAdams, and positive reviews are already flooding in. I have no doubt this movie will be good; it's just a matter of how good at this point. I hope it'll be spectacular, but even if it isn't, it should certainly be a worthy addition all the same -- and a definite must-see!




Loving
Nov 3rd; PG-13
My favorite director returns again with a second film for 2016! Well, I just said it, so it must be true; Jeff Nichols is my favorite director. So far he's been batting a thousand, with four beautifully brilliant and strikingly different films under his belt, and everything seems to indicate that Loving will be right at home along with them. It stars Joel Edgerton and Ruth Negga as the historic interracial couple Richard and Mildred Loving who fought the system over their marriage in the 60's. Nichols' staple, Michael Shannon is there also, and Nick Kroll and Marton Csokas. Normally, I have diminished interest in based-on-true-story films, especially if they're straight dramas, so I can see this being my least favorite from Nichols, but even if that's the case, it's still just as likely to be as beautifully and excellently made.




Arrival
Nov 10th; PG-13
Did I just watch a trailer for a political alien movie? At the very least Arrival seems to be exploring the realistic technical aspects of a hypothetical alien contact. Maybe like in the way The Martian did for surviving on a different planet. How would the government react? Who would be brought in to handle things? What kind of obstacles would need to be overcome and how would it be done? And then of course you throw in the question of whether the alien's intentions are good or bad, and you have a pretty neat idea for a movie! And based on the early reviews, they've pulled it off. Amy Adams stars -- who I'm currently feeling "meh" towards, but I know she capable of good things -- along with Jeremy Renner (always a plus) and Forest Whitaker. I'm always down for sci-fi, but I really want this one to be as great as it wants and appears to be.




Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them
Nov 17th; PG-13
Okay, I'm not much of a Harry Potter fan. Never read them; watched the films through and enjoyed them. Just so you know where I'm coming from here. This new spin-off does look like fun; set in the same universe, but apparently very separate from Harry's adventures. Eddie Redmayne is being all quirky and odd and is using magic a lot in the trailer which is great, and I like the tone of the trailer too. Mature, like the later Potter films, but also very focused on being fun. I heard it's the beginning of a new Potter-World series, and I just hope it doesn't turn into eight more movies. The idea of investing in a whole new string of films isn't appealing to me at my level of interest, but if this movie delivers and can stand on it's own, I'd be happy to watch it!




Manchester by the Sea
Nov 17th (limited); R
I don't have much to say about this one. It's rating will keep me out of the theaters for it even if I were that interested anyway. But I just really love all that all the critically acclaimed film are coming out now, and the critics are gushing over this one. So I thought the trailer was worth sharing.




Nocturnal Animals
Nov 17th (limited); R
Now this is the kind of character I'd really love to see Amy Adams play. Dark, and possibly sinister. And man, this film has a cast! There's also Jake Gyllenhaal, Michael Shannon, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Isla Fisher (Amy's look-alike!), Armie Hammer, and Laura Linney! The movie will probably have to be cut before I'll watch it, but it looks like my kind of film. Moody, mysterious and noir-ish. It's based on a book, so I'll have to look into that too.




Bleed For This
Nov 17th; R
Miles Teller bulks up to star in this based-on-a-true-story sports drama as a boxer who works through a devastating injury from a car crash to be able to fight again. Aaron Eckhart costars as his trainer. Sports movies aren't typically my things, but fighting sports do have an edge over other kinds. I would probably be very interested in this if it weren't for the rating, and how it comes through in the trailer -- that is, unnecessarily. These are the earmarks of a movie that is only decent, because not enough effort and devotion was put into making it great.




The Take (Bastille Day)
Nov 17th (limited); R
Idris Elba. Richard Madden. British action movie. Enough said, I think! This doesn't look like a huge caliber action film or anything, but it's the sort of movie that I'd want to watch no matter how bad it is and then live with the regret if I must. Another iffy rating, but I'll be keeping an eye out.




Rules Don't Apply
Nov 22nd; PG-13
I liked Alden Ehrenreich in Hail, Caesar! so much that I might be interested in this movie even if he wasn't the new Han Solo, but honestly this movie's plot looks like garbage. As another pilot of the Millennium Falcon would say. Here he co-stars with Lily Collins while she plays a aspiring actress in 1950's Hollywood. Romance and drama ensues.




Lion
Nov 24th (limited); NR
Probably won't be able to make it to the level of Slumdog Millionaire, which it will probably be compared to considering the drama and Dev Patel in the lead, but it sure is an interesting original idea for a story! An Indian boy lost as a kid is adopted by an Australian couple, and 25 years later, he sets out on the nearly impossible task of finding his home and family again.

Fantastic Four

Some Spoilers.

I completely understand everyone else who has seen this movie now. If I had seen it with the expectation that the trailer gave me instead of the expectation I got later after seeing the Rotten Tomatoes score, I would have been mad too.

As they say in the movies: It's clobberin' time!

I while ago I watched a conspiracy theory video that humorously suggested the idea that all Fantastic Four movies are actually satires of what superhero movie of their day are; purposefully being terrible films to point out flaws and pitfalls, thus setting the movie world back in order. Like a League of Shadows in film form. I thought it was a neat idea, but probably untrue. Until I saw Fant4stic. Now I'm not so sure, because if this movie was trying to fully be all the worst things you can see in a superhero movie today in order to satirize it, it couldn't have done a better job.

First off, it's very cookie-cutter in form. Starting with backstory -- kid genius Reed Richards (Miles Teller) builds a transporter to an unknown location, and when he figures out how to reverse the transport, Dr. Storm (Reg E. Cathey) recruits him to his lab where he's been working unsuccessfully on the same project. Then they "build the team" (and the transporter) using typical and cliched methods. There's Sue (Kate Mara) Dr. Storm's adopted daughter, Johnny (Michael B. Jordan) his careless, out of control son. Victor Von Doom (Toby Kebbell) is a sullen, cynical outcast type. And of course there's Reed's childhood friend Ben Grimm (Jamie Bell) who supported Reed's dream though his years as a laughing stock, and therefore couldn't be left out of his moment of success.

Miles Teller, please stop being in terrible movies.

Then once they're all together, stupidity happens! The transporter works, and the bad guy (the two-act bad guy who fills in for Doom until he's ready that is) (Tim Blake Nelson) wants to get NASA involved to send people through to explore the whole new world on the other side. And he's totally right to want this. It's literally a new, unknown world there, you would need to send through people who are trained for every imaginable eventuality and disciplined to be cautious and cool-headed. You would not want to send a bunch of big-headed nerds whose brains are too filled with genius to be bothered with trivial things like common sense. Perfectly, the only not smart person there, Ben, is the only one with any common sense or caution, but of course his wisdom is ignored and the trip ends with disaster and the gaining of superpowers. Yay!

This is about halfway through the movie now, because, as you know, if you want to make a serious superhero movie you have to have lots of setup and wait as long as possible to reveal the comic-book-y stuff. And here, the comic-book-y stuff is where it gets really disappointing. The CGI is the worst thing ever. The Thing looks pretty good -- generally realistic, but the design is a little dopey with the human eyes -- but Mr. Fantastic's stretchiness is so bad that it's almost not even funny. Almost. The effects elsewhere are randomly spotty. Also Sue's Glinda-bubble is way too silly and way too reminiscent of The Wizard of Oz to belong in such a straight-faced movie. (Unless of course, the straight face is a facade...)

Convenient that I can't find photos of any of this silly stuff... isn't it?

Let's talk about character. To get them out of the way, Sue is dull as expected; Johnny is charmless though he's mean to be charming. Comic relief from him (and elsewhere) is written painfully bad and is only a relief when it's over. Doom is trite, and then boring, and lacks anything compelling. Reed was confusing. I kept watching him, thinking "Miles Teller isn't a bad actor. He's not even acting badly. He can brighten up a Divergent movie for goodness sake! Why is this so bad?" It was a clash of the actor's talent and the script's extreme terribleness, and I'm pretty sure Teller handled it as well as can be expected, but the script still won.

I really want to talk about Ben. No exaggeration, the two or three minutes where Jamie Bell's face was on screen where the only times this film showed even a spark of liveliness. He actually used facial expressions and didn't have to battle with the script too much. In fact, the script served him a little by giving him some interesting character development, where he feels left behind when Reed leaves, yet once he joins him, he feels out of place and out of depth. This almost goes in a good direction after the superpowers come, because as we all know, Ben's powers are the biggest burden. Literally. And we really feel for him when he's abandoned by Reed, especially after he himself was such a good, encouraging friend. But later this conflict that could be compelling turns into a petty squabble, before being resolved by -- wait for it -- absolutely nothing, for one final disappointing slap to the face.

As The Thing his voice is heavily edited as well. It was like he just disappeared from the movie.

The movie ends so lazily, with the four coming up with their team name in the most painfully contrived way conceivable. ("Fantastic Four" is such an obvious name -- none of those geniuses could think of it off the top of their head? They had to do a whole bit? Really?) It also ends at the exact spot where it seems like if it had continued it might have actually gotten better from there, but instead leaves with the promise of sequel that we know will never happen which is sad in so many ways.

Coming back to the conspiracy, I have to mention that while this movie was very bad in almost every aspect, it truly felt as though it was exactly what it meant to be. The writing was cliched and horrendous, but in a practiced, even professional way. And the movie was unbearably dull and lifeless, but was unapologetic and confident about it. There was nothing worthwhile in the whole film except one minute of Jamie Bell's screen time, and the film's strange, unjustified sense of confidence. Watching it as a satire and thinking that maybe the terribleness was done purposefully helped me enjoy way more than I possibly could have otherwise, but the fact remains: Bad movies are bad movies. And Fant4stic... it's bad.

Upcoming Movie Roundup - March

February was another slow movie month for me. I still want to see P&P&Z, and Hail, Caesar! -- plus Eddie the Eagle which I missed when doing my last Upcoming Movie post, but have taken notice of since -- but I haven't gotten to the theater for any of them, and will probably just end up waiting. But maybe not, because March doesn't have any must-see-in-theater flicks either (as far as I can tell), though it does have quite a few that land in the same "really want to see at some point" category that the previously mentioned three are waiting in.

Which March movies look interesting to you?


London Has Fallen
Mar 4th; R
Aaron Eckhart and Gerard Butler return as the President of the United Stated and his loyal bodyguard who saved his life in the last film and is gonna do it again. But it London. With higher stakes, I assume. I caught Olympus Has Fallen on TV a while back, and enjoyed it pretty well. Though I thought it was pretty bad, it had a violent, serious appeal, and it was certainly better than White House Down with much more likable leads and its more hardcore vibe. So I wouldn't mind catching this one too someday.




Zootopia
Mar 4th; PG
It's not like I don't want to see this one, but right now I'm super tired of the trailers getting everywhere. Animated Disney movie trailers are seriously the worst things ever. They make this movie look so annoying and are probably giving away all the jokes too. However I have learned to not judge a Disney animation by its trailer, and all the extremely positive reviews coming in are much more convincing that this one may just be a gem. But the sloth jokes are driving me crazy.




The Divergent Series: Allegiant
Mar 18th; PG-13
Uuuuhhhhhh. Is it worth mentioning that Insurgent was so boring that I was basically done with this series as soon as I saw it? First of all, Allegiant was the worst book of the series, and I don't care to see it end on screen. There's no enjoyment for me there, unless some huge changes are made. Secondly, this isn't even the end, because (that's right!) the last book is split into two movies! Yaayyyy... Except no Part1/Part2, now there's an "Ascendant" to look forward to. I'm not saying I'll never see this one or the last one. There is after all, the matter of my curiosity and my favorite character Peter. But seeing it in the theater is a long shot. Almost as a long a shot as this movie breaking the pattern and being a truly good movie!




Midnight Special
Mar 18th; PG-13
I seem to find one every month. One movie that I know noting about but the cast makes me immediately want to see it. This time it's this sci-fi film that want to be like Close Encounters of the Third Kind, and the interesting cast is Adam Driver and (his great uncle in the Star Wars universe!) Joel Edgerton. And slightly less interestingly, Michael Shannon and Kirsten Dunst. Plus it has the writer and director of Mud, which I absolutely adored. I love me some sci-fi, so the plot does actually seem intriguing too, and reviews are pretty positive, so I just may be giving this one a watch sometime!




The Little Prince
Mar 18th(limited); PG
This one's been a long time coming, but is finally almost here. This trailer is pretty spectacular, and the cast is large and talented, and I expect it'll be a very well-received movie. It looks great, I'll be very surprised if it isn't, and I'm definitely planning to want to see it for myself.




Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Mar 25th; PG-13
Do you have any idea of how hard it was for me to not type "Bateman vs. Superbman" just then? It was a struggle. At least I got it out of my system now. So Henry Cavill is back and Zack Snyder is back, and Ben Affleck's Batman is about to get its debut, and I can't decide what I think. Should I laugh? Cry? Shrug and roll my eyes? Forget about his whole thing and wait for a good hero vs. hero movie to come along -- AKA, Civil War? Funny enough, it actually looks like a decent Batman movie at the beginning of this trailer. Then Supes and Drama and Snyder's infamous action style shows up, and I'm back to rolling my eyes. Anyway, I guess I'm done now. Moving on...




I Saw the Light
Mar 25th(limited); R
Tom Hiddleston has faded a little away from the peak of his popularity, but he's still a talented actor and I imagine he does a fantastic job in this role. I don't think I'd mind watching him in anything even if he does trade in his British accent for a country one that sound like what I hear all the time, and he even sings in this movie to make up for it.... But besides that I have absolutely no interest in this movie whatsoever. It does not look good. And as much as I like Hiddleston, he's not going to be enough to get me to watch this. Ho-hum reviews coming in seem to share my opinion.

Upcoming Movie Roundup - August

July turned out fantastically! I saw my two must-watches, and they were both even better than I expected. Ant-Man was hilarious and a wonderfully fun time (read my review here), and Mission: Impossible Rogue Nation was one incredible, gleeful action sequence after another. (Stay tuned for a very positive review of it.) I didn't get to see Paper Towns quite yet though -- I'll be seeing it later today, actually.

August doesn't have a large number of film of interest to me, but of the films that are interesting, they're very interesting. There may end up being two must-sees for me this month too! Which end-of-summer flicks are you excited for? Any I don't mention? Let me know about them in the comments!

Fantastic Four
Aug 7th; PG-13
This one will only reach must-see status if the reviews come out right. As in, better than the 2005 F4. To make it interesting let's include the Silver Surfer sequel to the too -- it was a little better, but both were bad enough to be easily topped by this reboot, which is looking pretty neat by the trailers. And by "pretty neat" I mean really, very, super neat. The cast of Miles Teller, Michael B. Jordan, Kate Mara, and Jamie Bell is fantastically promising, and the cool concept, science-y elements are very intriguing. I have every confidence that this team will finally live up to their name.




The Gift
Aug 7th; R
Written by, directed by, and starring one of my favorites, Joel Edgerton, along with Jason Bateman and Rebecca Hall, this psychological thriller I've seen floating around, but it only just now actually caught my attention. An oh my goodness -- it looks good. I mean, it looks terrifying, but really good. I don't think I would survive a theater showing, but I'll be waiting for the DVD/rental with... suspenseful anticipation.




The Man From U.N.C.L.E.
Aug 14; PG-13
It may flip-flop around (or it may not) but right now, I'm actually more excited for this movie than I am for the previously mentioned last superhero movie of the summer. Just because of the trailer. It just looks like an absolute blast. The kind of brilliant fun that makes you laugh at all the awesomeness and then say things like, "I can't even" just because you can't find any words to actually describe all the things you're feeling. Even if it doesn't quite meet those expectations, I can't see it being any less than a movie worth seeing. Henry Cavill, Armie Hammer star with Hugh Grant, Jared Harris, Alicia Vikander and The Great Gatsby's Elizabeth Debiki co-starring.




American Ultra
Aug 21st; R
This one will probably be too much with too little interest for me to actually ever see until it's television days, but it is a good action-comedy idea, and the trailer certainly is amusing. Jesse Eisenberg is a loser stoner who is really a sleeper spy, and is suddenly activated to stylishly violent, and comedic results. Kristen Stewart is his girlfriend.

9 New Nerdy SDCC Trailers

The massive entertainment event called the San Diego Comic Con spurred the (in one case unwilling) release of many new trailers videos for upcoming, highly anticipated films and TV shows. I shared the first one I saw, the Doctor Who Series 9 trailer in a separate post, but then they started coming so fast they overwhelmed me so that I could barely form a coherent thought about one before the next showed up! But now the Comic Con is over and things are settling down, so now I'm just going to share all the trailers I found interesting all together, right here, right now:

Doctor Who
Click here for my original post on this, but the gist of it is this: I love Doctor Who. I didn't love the last season. I'm still hoping to love this one. This trailer does nothing to weaken that hope. Peter Capaldi's hair finally remembered that it's the hair of a Doctor and has acted accordingly.



Sherlock
This is less a trailer and more a first-look clip. And as long as the setting of the late 1800's is explained reasonably, it doesn't seem like this Sherlock one-off special will be any less awesome than the past three seasons have been. They certainly are taking full advantage of the setting by having Cumberbatch's characterization match the Sherlock Holmes of the books exactly. And he delivers that first line just as brilliantly as he ever has delivered a line. John's mustache is fantastic, and Mrs. Hudson is the land-lady, and not a plot device. Everything appears to be in order, and the game is on! Or, should I say "afoot"?




Con-Man
I don't know if I'll ever see this, but I love the idea of it so, SO much. Alan Tudyk writes directs and stars along with Nathan Fillion, and the rest of the Firefly cast have cameos. It's about a man who starred on a tragically cancelled sci-fi series (sound familiar?) and since hasn't been able to do anything better, but just goes to sci-fi conventions, signs autographs, and bemoans his terrible fate. I don't know how appropriate the Vimo web-series will be, but it looks pretty funny at least, and I love that it's not even subtle about it's Firefly references. Language Warning for the trailer:




The Man in the High Castle
This is an Amazon series. It's an adaptation of a Philip K. Dick 1962 science fiction novel about what would have happened if America had lost the second World War. Philip K. Dick is the author of the stories that were adapted into Blade Runner, Total Recall, Minority Report, The Adjustment Bureau, and several more, and that is a huge appeal to me. The trailer is extremely dark though, and it may end up proving to be too much, but I really really want to give it a shot, and the pilot episode is available for streaming right now...




Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Or as I fondly refer to it: Bateman v Superbman: Down of Justice. This is probably the trailer that had the biggest impact on the general crowd of movie fans. And it had a pretty big impact on me too; I've never experienced the sensation of feeling anger towards a movie trailer before. Now I'm trying to decide if I should attempt to explain all the ways it angered me or not... oh, why not -- rant time!

First of all, Superman's character is still being cruelly whittled away into a sad pile of distorted and discarded goodness. He's still the man who let thousands of people die by hesitating to kill one evil man, but now he doesn't even seem to know what he should do anymore -- he won't even defend himself from masses of people who worship him as a god! The best thing to do about the Man of Steel casualty count was to ignore it, not exploit it, but I guess that's the only way they could figure to rile up the Bat. Batman is slightly better. When people he knows die from Supes indecision problem, he comes out of retirement for revenge. And if one single person dies from the resulting battle, he'll be a complete hypocrite.

The joyless, "real-life" serious tone set promises to bore with unending relentless and forced lifelessness masquerading as drama. And speaking of "relentless", the battle sequences promise that too. I love the stylized look of those scenes with the dark endless piles of rubble lit with random little fires that fill the screen with floating embers and will undoubtedly look epic in 3D... a clue: no. (I've been watching BBC's Robin Hood.) I'm trying to figure why people say that this is the best trailer they've ever seen, and I think it boils down to one thing: the magnificent music. ... Never mind, I'm not going to comment on that. I think I'm done. I'll just add that if you like this trailer, or even think it's the best you've ever seen, I'm not trying to dissuade you or say you're wrong. Opinions; to each their own!




Suicide Squad
Now THIS is how to do a inviting DC movie trailer! I know next to nothing about these characters and this story, but this trailer make me want to watch the movie it advertizes. Very much. Everything about this trailer just oozes with a slick and unforced darkly cool style. It has twice the required dosage of DC darkness but still feels unmistakeably fun. And I wonder if it will even go so far as to get an R rating? I wouldn't be surprised, but I would be disappointed if the content reached a level that I wouldn't want to see, because right now I really want to see this. This seems like DC's best chance at a "Guardians of the Galaxy" -- that seems like high praise I know, but that's just in comparison with DC's rebooted film record so far: Man of Steel and the trailer I just finished bashing. Almost anything would be an improvement.




The Man from U.N.C.L.E.
And HERE is a Henry Cavill movie I can actually get excited about! This trailer is 5 minutes of snappy snazzy slick vintage fun, and I am left with no doubt that the film it advertizes will be exactly the same. Need I say more? I think not. Don't believe me? Just watch:




Fantastic Four
On the side of Marvel Superheroes, things continue to be solid, and this new F4 trailer that features Reed Richards as a kid stays firmly in that vein. This movie is looking very solid. I was interested in it the moment I saw Jamie Bell and Miles Teller in the cast, but beyond that, it really is looking like a well-done reboot, steering away from the cheesiness of the last effort, but still remembering to be exciting and fun. Definitely looking forward to this one's upcoming release.




Star Wars
And this isn't a trailer, but a behind-the-scenes featurette for the making of The Force Awakens, the main point of which, I believe is just to reassure fans once again that this franchise is in good and loving hands. And it does a great job being convincing of that fact. All the people involved in this love this world as much as any of us, and are obviously invested in making it as great as they possibly can. And they seem to be having a blast doing it. I have every confidence in this film, and can't wait to see the finished product!

The Spectacular Now

This film is rated R, with a high amount of content I consider inappropriate (and did my best to avoid when I could) even imbedded in it's themes, which prevents me from recommending it without reserve. This review focuses on my thoughts apart from those problems.

Major Spoilers throughout.

"Bad boy" meets "good girl" and they rub their traits off on each other, encouraging each other to be simultaneously better and worse, in this realistic, unapologetic look at life and love through the eyes of a high school senior.

Said senior is Sutter Keeley -- on the surface, your average southern, easy goin', sweet talkin', foul-mouthed, foul-minded dude. The kind that has walked every southern high school hallway, plus some. A number have crossed my path. They're hard to miss. He is played realistically, to absolute perfection by Miles Teller. He lives with his mom. He's still mad about his parent's divorce. He's had a long string of serious-but-not-really relationships, the latest of which just dumped him. The only thing he really takes seriously is his partying, and that leaves him waking up at 6:00 AM, on a stranger's front lawn, hungover and wondering where his car might be.

Yet you never dislike him for even a second. The film rides on this character's journey alone.

Actually, someone wakes him up. Literally, from his nap in the grass, and, eventually, figuratively too. Her name is Aimee (played by Shailene Woodley). She goes to the same school as Sutter, but he never noticed her, because she's not his usual type -- she's sweet, reserved, not too confident, and unaware of her beauty. It doesn't take Sutter long to see her good qualities, and he enjoys hanging out with her, but is more interested in her potential to make his ex jealous than anything else -- for while that is. Then he suddenly notices himself beginning to change... for the good.

Of course that's not before Aimee takes the plunge into the world of teen partying, drinking and... loose morals. I wonder though, if Aimee really was the "good girl" we're supposed to believe she was from the beginning. It's clear from the moment they meet that she is interested in him, and is eager to pursue their relationship (in the furthest, shallowest way possible), and come over to "his side." She is "good" only in the worldliest sense. She follows rules; he doesn't. That's all that separates them.

The main reason I braved this turbulent film was because of Teller and Woodley and the glowing reviews they received for their performances. And I'll gladly add my voice to the resounding praise: they were real, they were natural; they were spectacular. Their scenes together -- especially the ones made up of one long take -- are an absolute pleasure to see, just because of the natural ease and grace they possess, making the scene feel more like real-life than I've ever seen accomplished in a film like this. This should also probably be credited to the director, (James Ponsoldt) who undoubtedly encouraged them to act on their impulses and improvise off into rabbit trails if the moment called for it, as long as they reverted back to the script eventually. In this way the pair's relationship was very real, but, I never found it personally, emotionally compelling.

They're also the most convincing twenty-somethings-playing-teens I've ever seen.

What I did find compelling, was Sutter. As good as Woodley is, this movie is all about Sutter, and Teller handled the complexities of the character amazingly. His dilemma over loving Aimee and being afraid that his bad influence is ruining her life is powerful; his issues involving his father, even more so. At first, Sutter's excuse for his bad lifestyle is his dad's absence, something he blames his mom for, believing he was a good man and she kicked him out -- and if she hadn't he would have been raised properly. But then he meets his dad again, (he is played greatly by Kyle Chandler) and realizes with horror that he's nothing like he'd remembered; seeing him was like looking at himself twenty years in the future, and suddenly he has no one to blame for his problems but himself.

Aimee woke Sutter up and told him he was in a hole; meeting his dad again was what made him realize he wanted out; but most importantly, it was his mother who was there to help him with the climb. This part had the least amount of time spent on it, but it was also the most straight-forward, and most untainted positive part of the whole film.

The movie is marketed as a romance. I found it both less and more than that.

In my favorite scene, near the end of the film, Sutter's employer -- and closest thing he has to a father figure in his life -- calls him to his office and gives him a choice: promise to stop coming to work loaded, or get fired. And I love Sutter's honesty; they both know that's a promise he couldn't keep, and so he doesn't make it. They shake hands, and he starts to leave, but then his boss adds that if he were Sutter's father, he might give him a warning lecture about the dangers of what he's doing to himself. With a subtle power that defines the character and film alike, Sutter replies to the good-hearted man that if he were his father, he wouldn't have to.

But Sutter is able to overcome the shadow of his father, realizing that it he alone is responsible for his life, and it's never too late to start living it right. At the end of the movie he is maybe not on the best path, but certainly a better one; meandering towards the light at the end of the tunnel -- with a smile on his face that allows us to hope that he just might make it.

Insurgent

This review is spoiler-free.

The training is over, and the real fight has just begun for Tris Prior. She worked so hard to become one of the best of the new Dauntless recruits, but now all that means nothing; she doesn't belong to any faction anymore, but along with her Dauntless friends has been branded an insurgent and is being hunted by the rest of the Dauntless who have joined forces with Erudite and Jeanine Matthews (Kate Winslet). But never mind that Tris barely got to be Dauntless before she was kicked out -- all that training is about to come in handy anyway.

She also picked up a useful fashion sense in Dauntless.

As she will always be, Shailene Woodley remains the best and most captivating thing about this franchise. When all else fails it is her face, and her performance that holds your interest. Her Tris has regal grace and strength, but can still convince us that she's a teenage girl, and her inner struggles with fear and forgiveness and self-loathing don't seem too petty coming from her so sincerely. With just a few looks she gives quiet depth to a character I found lacking while reading her every thought on the page.

Romantic co-star Theo James is Four -- mostly just around for his good looks and even better fighting skills this time, without much else to do. But still he is not without his charms, and while there's not much praise to give him, there isn't anything bad to say either. Previous-romantic-co-star number one, Ansel Elgort, as Tris' brother Caleb gets to prove why he was cast as Ansel Elgort this time, but still you can tell he's just setting up for the big stuff in Allegiant. Still the more screen time was welcome, and everything was set up really well.

Four's cool. Caleb runs funny.

My personal favorite (and previous-romantic-co-star number two) continues to be Miles Teller's Peter. Peter is the only character who I fully understand yet is still interesting enough to pay attention to. He's a fun antagonist, and the only one of this series. Every time he came on screen I could literally feel the weight of the movie lift with his lightening, less-serious presence.

In fact this movie's main downfall was the seriousness. Divergent, while still serious at its core, had an easy-going fun-to-watch element flowing though everything that happened. Insurgent, well, with the war games, zip-lining, and making friends being over with -- Insurgent just forgot to have fun. (Peter's the only one who remembered because he's the only one who just doesn't care.) There was a lot of heaviness, and not much at all to balance it out. Fortunately it could have been considerably worse -- while heavy and nearly unrelenting, at least all the serious drama was done well. Being at the core of the story and its drama, Tris and Woodley get the credit again for keeping it all afloat. Also worth mentioning is that I'm sure I'll be less bothered by this smallish problem when I see it the second time.

Oh boy. The bf and the ex-bf are going at it again...

That could also apply pretty well to the second and final problem this movie was hit with -- unfocused plotting. Not that plot events didn't make sense, but as a whole it didn't seem to know what it wanted to concentrate on. It was like a loopy little bee, flying in circles, trying to figure out which flower to land on compared with the simple, detailed and straightforward mapping of the first movie. I read the book, but still spent too much time trying to figure out where we were and what was important.

I guess you could say having read the book was actually unhelpful, since the plot was rearranged and simplified quite a bit. Since it is simpler, and more memorable, I prefer the film's version, but being simplified (not to mention having the middle-chapter syndrome) gave it extra time to deal with. Some of that time was used interestingly, but Tris' time-filling dreams got old fast -- especially with the later simulations having the same flavor.

"Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy?"

The most fun this movie has is in the action scenes. Nothing particular about them stuck out at me, but overall they kept me more engaged than I was otherwise. So you can imagine what my favorite parts must have been -- places that had some fun fighting, plus fun-adding Peter involved. That one early scene at Amity was great. Hand to hand action was always good, but occasionally there was big, visual, or "action" stuff that didn't do much besides go pointlessly over the top -- mostly in sims, but sometimes elsewhere. And that last obviously CG shot of people from a distance? Not good.

Without the "wow" effect of a new dystopian world for us to wrap our minds around, Insurgent tries hard to make up for it with twists and turns, bigger fights and higher stakes. Some shots missed -- some of those seem like blind shots in the dark for any moral dilemma or twist in character an audience might find compelling without ever following up on them. And some shots hit the target. Those were mostly physical things you could see on the screen, like a performance that is compelling because the actor made it so, or an old-fashioned hand to hand showdown, or complex character relationships and motivations beginning to unfold.

Like Tris, this franchise isn't perfect, but it's going keep on fighting.

Or the simple reason we are drawn to these kinds of stories in the first place -- to watch a small, underpowered group of people passionately, dauntlessly standing up and fighting for what is right, when there's almost nothing left in the world worth standing up for.

Upcoming Movie Roundup - March

February was another disappointment for 2015. Although I did see Old Fashioned, and appreciated it very much, it wasn't as great as I'd hoped and didn't save the month from flops and disappointments. And on top of that Agent Carter is over. However, March is looking up! If all goes to plan I will be seeing two of these films in the theaters, and there's also a new season of a quality television show that is nothing like Agent Carter, but can perfectly replace it anyway. Is March looking up for you too? What movies will you be seeing?

Chappie
Mar 6th; R
What with the director of District 9, Neill Blomkamp helming this, I wonder if it will be the very first successful attempt at making an "AI" movie where the AI being is actually a good guy. I can't think of a film that has done it satisfactorily yet, so that could be very cool. But besides that, this looks like a very original and interesting movie anyway, with a cast including Hugh Jackman, Sigourney Weaver, and Sharlto Copley proving the voice and moments for Chappie. Still I suppose there's the possibility that this will be more "Elysium" than "District 9" but even that is better than most.




Cinderella
Mar 13th; PG
This is exactly what I need: a classic, cute, silly, beautiful new version of a great, happy, fuss-less classic fairytale, Cinderella. Something for us to lose ourselves in, and help us remember why fairytales are so appealing in the first place. Cast; large and familiar; Lily James and Richard Madden as Ella and the prince; Cate Blanchett as the evil stepmother, Hayley Atwell as Ella's real mother, and Helena Bonham-Carter as her Fairy Godmother; and Holliday Grainger and Sophie McShera as the ugly stepsisters. And Kenneth Branagh directing. This is the most promising thing I see; he really knows how to do old fashioned romance and drama with a beautiful style. I can hardly wait for this one!




Insurgent
Mar 20th; PG-13
#2 in the Divergent series. And I'm not as excited about his one as I would like to be. Mostly, I think, because I didn't like the two sequel books as much as I did the original. Still, there's plenty of potential there, and it might make a better movie than it did a book. Also this is the best installment for my favorite character, Peter, (Miles Teller) and I'm also looking forward to Caleb's (Ansel Elgort) expanded role. Then of course there's Shailene Woodley, and she is solely what makes this series tick as well as it does. Theo James, Kate Winslet, and in fact everyone who didn't die in the last movie return (and some who did -- what are you doing, Ashely Judd?) and there's lot of new characters too. I'm sure I'll be seeing this, but I'm not holding out any hope that it'll be any better than the first.




While We're Young
Mar 27th; R
With The Secret Life of Walter Mitty I suddenly started to like Ben Stiller, particularly his more sincere comedies, so when I ran across this trailer it caught my attention, and it looks like it could be a pretty interesting movie. It's about an older couple (Stiller and Naomi Watts) who start hanging out with a young couple (Amanda Seyfried and Adam Driver) and the interesting results of this unlikely, socially strange friendship.




Broadchurch
Season 2; premieres March 4th 10/9c on BBC America
Broadchurch is the exact opposite of everything Agent Carter was. It is dark, melancholy, serious, creepy and depressing. Hardly and light moments or even a break from the building tension. But it sure is good. Starring the great David Tennant as the disturbed and depressed Detective, and Olivia Coleman as his partner, who after the last season has a husband on trial for murder. (The cast is teaming with Doctor Who alumni; also Arthur Darvill, Jonathan Bailey, and David Bradley.) The reason this can replace Agent Carter, is because the season, James D'Arcy has joined the cast! This trailer suggests (strongly) that he'll be playing a bad guy, but still, it's something.

Divergent

This is a spoiler-free review.

In this post-apocalyptic world, there is a large community living in the ruined city of Chicago protected by a huge wall. The people there are divided into factions to keep things equal and organized. They are typed either Abnegation (the selfless) Erudite (the intelligent) Dauntless (the brave) Amity (the peaceful) or Candor (the honest). Teens, at a certain (read: unclear) point in their life take a test to see which they are, and then are allowed to choose any of the five to spend the rest of their life in. Beatrice (Shailene Woodley) was born into Abnegation, but always had a difficult time being selfless. On the day of the test she's afraid she won't test into Abnegation, but she's also afraid she will. Both her fears come true -- turns out she's selfless, and intelligent, and brave. They call it being "divergent" and in this community, it's not exactly something to be proud of.

Our heroine.

I liked this movie more than I thought I would -- in spite of a few things, and because of a few things I didn't really expect, and occasionally both those things are the same things. Like the plot -- it's halfway unique and halfway silly. And after the setup described above, it's small, episodic, and focused on Beatrice (or Tris) for quite a while as she struggles to fit into the fraction of her choice, before moving on to the big stakes. Not very much happens during that time that struck me as being very important, but at the same time I enjoyed those parts most because they were the most infused with character development -- something I didn't expect a lot of, and was therefore rather impressed with.

Tris and her brother Caleb (Ansel Elgort) at the reap-- I mean... the choosing ceremony?

I promise, I'm trying my best not to compare this film with... you know... that one movie that everyone compares it to... but I want to now, just to say that they're not really that comparable, especially in the case of the heroine. I know Shailene Woodley is a much respected up-and-coming actress (or perhaps now she's already up-and-came?) but hearing everyone say "this in the next..." -- you know -- I practically expected Tris to only be played by Woodley because Jennifer Lawrence wouldn't do it. But Lawrence as -- you know -- is very different from Woodley's Tris, who is peppy, and warm, and her charisma is friendly and inviting, and she draws our attention easily with her openness, sweet voice and those large, multicolored eyes. Since I've yet to read the book, I can't say (yet) that she's perfect, but I have a feeling, and see no flaws.

At any rate, with anyone less capable, this film would be a dismal little failure, as she carries the film very well, and almost entirely alone. There is a very large supporting cast, but none of the characters quite reach the heights of the leading lady. Theo James probably carries the next greatest amount, as the mysterious and devastatingly handsome Four (I assume that's how he's described in the book) but I wasn't too impressed with either acting or characterization. The mainly impressive thing involving him is how long it took his and Tris' relationship to turn romantic. Seriously -- it was better than you'd think.

Still, anyone could see it coming a mile away. But guess that's not the point.

I don't have much to say about the rest of the cast. None of them were bad or anything, really they were mostly just underwhelming, and the bigger the actors name the more underwhelming the impact. So smallest impact; Kate Winslet, then Ashley Judd, Maggie Q (actually, she was cool) and Tris' group of friends. But remember there's more overall character development than in your average teen movie, so they do all have their moments. Biggest name and biggest impact of supporting characters has to be Peter, mostly because I just saw Miles Teller in the Footloose remake (which he stole) and have been wanting to see him and Woodley in The Spectacular Now, so I paid more attention to him -- but then he did maintain it with a bold and interesting character, and, maybe a little bit stole some scenes. Or all of them. One of those.

This being the best still I could find of him is good proof that he wasn't supposed to make quite so much an impression (directly above Christina there (Zoe Kravitz)).

A number of things about this movie teetered on the edge of Quality, threatening to fall over into the pit of Teenage Ridiculousness, but ultimately only one aspect fell -- or rather it took a running leap -- the use of sappy modern pop music; what was up with that? When the soundtrack wasn't singing it was fine. You know how I know that? Because I never even noticed it. But every time some auto-tuned female would start crooning out "feels" I became severely distracted, and then would glance around, suspicious that someone was judging me, either for not feeling the feels or for not being twelve. Then it would end, and I would return to perfect comfort, enjoying Woodley's performance, and searching faces to see if Peter is in this scene.

As for themes, I'm not really sure what it was trying to say besides the obvious, "don't let anyone put you in a box," and the Disney-patented-classic "be yourself" but I believe that it believed that it was profound. Another reason to read that book.

After much hemming and hawing, I finally decided to go see Divergent without having first read the book. I was hoping (and also fearing) that seeing the film would make a fan out of me, but I am barely less indifferent to this franchise now than I was three days ago; still curious to read the first novel, still unsure if I'll do anything more. But I enjoyed the movie for itself, in spite of its occasional diversions into typical teenage romance and drama; in spite of its not being very thought-provoking, like -- you know -- (okay fine; The Hunger Games. There, I said it.) And because of more than I expected -- like it actually doesn't steal so much from the teenage fiction playbook as to make me ashamed to say I liked it. And the acting that ranged from better-than-necessary to great, and the story and story-telling was simple, fun, involving, and even pretty exciting. Divergent falls only barely short of living up to its name.