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 - June

In May the only movie I went to see was Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2. And while I enjoyed the mess out of it in the moment, it hasn't made much of a lasting impression. Check out my review of it here! I still want to see the other releases I mentioned eventually, and may go see Pirates after a while, but right now is my busy time of the year, and theater trips must take a backseat for a bit.

This month looks to have two must-sees to get to over summer, plus quite a few that will be staying on my radar as they pass through! What are you most looking forward to seeing in the month of June?


Wonder Woman
Jun 2nd; PG-13
Well -- no matter what happens with the film, we know they can make a super epic trailer out of it! It looks a bit like Thor and a bit like Captain America: The First Avenger, but it's got a female lead and comes from DC. Wonder Woman was one of the best parts of Batman v Superman, so from my perspective her film has the potential to be the best film from DC since The Dark Knight. It appears to have a coherent and interesting plot which is promising, and the flood of overwhelmingly positive responses so far is creating some huge waves. I'll certainly be seeing this one in theaters, though probably not for a little while due to extreme busyness. At this point it doesn't seem to be too much to hope that all the hype it's built up for itself will be lived up to!




Dean
Jun 2nd (limited); PG-13
Ah, the classic indie film, with the kinda goofy-looking, low key depressed and cynical lead, who wanders through a mildly aimless but pleasant jaunt of a plot, falls in love (maybe) and feels a little better by then end (maybe). Yeah. I may sound a bit cynical myself about this, but honestly this is the kind of flick I'd spend all day on lazy Saturdays watching if only I had access to more of them. So put me on the waiting list for this one too. Bonus: Kevin Kline!




The Mummy
Jun 9th; PG-13
The beginning of a new universe franchise of connected monster films including Jekyll and Hyde and Frankenstein and such -- they're calling it Dark Universe! But they're a bit behind. This flick seems to be more of a remake of the Brendan Frasier version then the 1932 original, but whatever. No matter it's to-be connections or general quality, one thing is almost certain: that it will be entertaining. That is Tom Cruise's specialty. I also enjoyed Sofia Boutella a whole lot in Star Trek Beyond so I'm looking forward to her playing a potentially over-the-top villain like this! As for quality, we'll have to wait and see.




The Book of Henry
Jun 16th(limited); PG-13
This movie has been making some waves coming up -- maybe mostly because it's directed by Colin Trevorrow who has a small but good track record and is set to direct Star Wars Episode 9. It also has both Jacob Tremblay and Jaeden Leiberher, two of the biggest child actors right now, and Naomi Watts who always puts everything into her performances. The plot is unexpected and unusually serious for a film with a child lead, and the trailer, as ominous as it is, also has some extra ominous undertones that are making me wonder if there's gonna be a happy ending here. If I see it it'll surely stress me out, but right now it looks like it would be worth it. The movie also promises Lee Pace, but unless I missed him, he doesn't appear in the trailer.




Maudie
Jun 16th(limited); PG-13
A performance-driven indie. This one's about the Canadian folk artist Maud Lewis, played by Sally Hawkins, and her husband, Ethan Hawke. Since it's based on a true story, I'd imagine they play up the drama a bit to make it more interesting, but it does look like a sweet tale, and I like the two actors, so if ever I get the chance I'll probably give it a watch.




Kill Switch
Jun 16th(limited); R
Okay... a scifi film starring Dan Stevens. Yes, take my money! But wait -- what's this? A catch? Turns out most of the movie is in POV so we won't get to see his face, doing all that acting stuff? Why? We already had to deal with this issue in Beauty and the Beast. Can someone make an awesome scifi movie with Dan Stevens and actually put Dan Stevens in it please? Besides him the movie doesn't look too great, but because it's a scifi, and because Stevens is in it (however little) I'll probably still watch it at my earliest convenience. I expect I'll be disappointed though.




Transformers: The Last Knight
Jun 21st; PG-13
Ugh. The over-stimulation is for real. I could barely even stand the trailer. It is nice to see Josh Duhamel back though, but that's about it. If you enjoy these movies chances are this one will be no different, but for me it's looking even bigger than the last one, which means it'll be even better for making fun of it whenever we can get it for free! Enjoy it how you can, right?




Baby Driver
Jun 28th: NR
Haha, I was about to say this might be my most anticipated movie of the month! No "might" about it friends -- if this isn't the highlight of my movie-June, there isn't gonna be a highlight (okay fine, Wonder Woman could easily be a highlight, but you get my point). Edgar Wright directs this one which is all I really need to know, but it will also feature a boatload of music (makes sense with Wright) and all long cast list of Ansel Elgort, Lily James, Kevin Spacey, Jon Bernthal, Jon Hamm, and Jamie Foxx. The trailer makes the film look super stylish and tightly edited (Wright, again). Seriously, there is no bigger draw than the director, and the premise out of which you know he can make one killer film! (With one killer track!)

The Impossible

This review is Spoiler-free.

Based on the true story of the 2004 tsunami that hit Thailand, and one vacationing family of five's struggle to survive and find each other in the destruction.

The Bennett family.

The family in real-life was Spanish, but here they are British. Otherwise the basics of their story are all very accurate, but I imagine embellished a little in some of the details. Ewan McGregor is the father, Henry, and Naomi Watts is the mother, and central character, Maria. Their three sons, Lucas, Thomas, and Simon are played by Tom Holland, Samuel Joslin, and Oaklee Pendergast, respectively.

Full disclosure: I only gained an interest to watch this movie once Tom Holland was cast as Spider-Man, and I suddenly wanted to witness his acting abilities. I watched it for that reason -- and got more out of it than I expected to besides -- but satisfied myself on this front too. Tom Holland is absolutely a capable and talented actor. Most of the movie is from his perspective, and he is easily one of the most involving and relatable characters. He seems very well-trained in the craft, with lots of discipline. He delivered his lines and moved very deliberately (though the latter was a trait often obviously encouraged by the filming style and adopted by everyone) and used body language expertly and naturally. He was only slightly lacking in that he never managed any actual tears while crying.

The film follows two story lines -- Lucas and Maria in one...

And yes -- this is a crying movie. On that note: It was Ewan McGregor who impressed me most in the film, when his one very emotional scene was the most real-seeming in the movie, and the only scene that tempted me to cry along. Naomi Watts was nominated for a leading actress Oscar for her performance, and I can see why, but I can also see why she didn't win. There just wasn't enough there for her to do, but what she does do is noteworthy. The younger two boys were quite good too, but are featured considerably less than the previous three. The middle one, Samuel Joslin had one or two simple, profound moments.

... and Henry in the other, as he tries to find them while keeping Thomas and Simon safe.

This movie is very serious and wrenchingly emotional; not my usual cup of tea for a movie. But I did realize the good movie that it is. I appreciated the majority of it as high quality film making; was interested in half as much as an involving story; and even liked a fraction of that as personally memorable and enjoyable moments, details, and performances. It must have been extremely difficult to put together, film, and act in, and all of it had a definite air of high quality; it was thoughtfully scripted, expertly filmed, devotedly acted, neatly cut, and uniquely styled.

The dramatically ominous style came with a side effect though. It was only halfway innocently enhancing, and often was also used as a gimmick to help get that high emotional and dramatic level that was wanted (and to make the film last longer). A level that was achieved fully by exploiting what involving drama was naturally there, and if you must do that kind of thing, at least have the courtesy of being subtle about it. The only thing that wasn't ever affected by calculated tweaking and enhancing was the horror element, which was about as high as it could be all by itself. A solid half of the other moments were milked for all they were worth. The unaffected moments were the ones I loved, but artificial or not, it all left quite a big impression.

It really was seriously, realistically scary at times.

Knowing that the film's purpose was to garner an emotional response from its audience was the one thing I balked at. It felt dishonest; like an elaborate trick, and it shouldn't have, because it really was a real event. I got my enjoyment from everything except letting myself get involved in the emotions and drama, but I still felt as involved as I normally am in movies, and it still left me drained. I appreciated and was impressed by more than I expected -- the natural terror, the wonder, the look at characters completely removed from their reality and comfort zones, and the involved and dedicated performances and technical world around them that made it all real -- but all from an wary and removed distance. That is, after all, the best place from which to view a devastating tsunami of peaked emotions, drama, terror, and human tragedy like that of The Impossible.