Upcoming Movie Roundup - October

Last month I saw my one must-see-in-the-theater-movie, which was The Predator (review). It let a lot of people down apparently, but not me; it was exactly what I wanted and a ton of fun. And I saw Sierra Burgess is a Loser (review) off Netflix which I didn't know was getting released (oops), and I liked that one a ton more than the general audiences too. Oh Well.

I also played catch-up with The Meg (review), Crazy Rich Asians (review), and Upgrade (review). The latter two impressed my very much. Very, very much. And then I started a River Phoenix bender spurred by Running on Empty (review) a new favorite, and I now I'm stuck in the late 80's and very early 90's and feeling a little lackadaisical about all these new movies -- but there's one, maybe two must-sees for me this month, and several more that I'll be wanting to see eventually too. So it should be a good month!

How was your September? What looks good this month??


A Star is Born
Oct 5th; R
It's kinda funny because I've always liked Lady Gaga's voice but never cared for her music or her outlandish appearance. So seeing her like this is super cool, and I'm very interested to see the movie and how her acting talents are. (Pretty good by the look of it.) And Bradley Cooper is always a plus. I guess this is a remake of a remake of a remake or whatever but I've never seen any version, so I don't know what to expect but it looks like an involving music drama.




Venom
Oct 5th; PG-13
I'm tired of seeing this trailer so that's not a good sign, but I already had tickets to see it Thursday night. I want it to be good. Partially because I just want to enjoy it and I've been looking forward to it for a while -- but also partially because everyone else is so sure it's going to be awful and I want it to rise above that. But it keeps feeling more and more stale and I don't have much hope that it will be any more than anyone expects. Maybe, just maybe, it'll surprise me.




Await Further Instructions
Oct 5th(limited); NR
Intense, intimate, British, scifi horror. If this movie delivers on what the trailer promises, I think I'll enjoy it very much.




First Man
Oct 12th; PG-13
When your first feature movie is a movie as remarkable as Whiplash is, I guess it can be hard to find anywhere to go from there. So Damien Chazelle when to Hollywood, and now he's going to the moon. Honestly, I expect this will be my least favorite of his movies, but that doesn't mean I won't think it's great. My expectations are definitely up there. As it stands, Apollo 13 is my favorite real-life story movie and the only one I can think of that I even love, so if this can even come close that'll be an amazing accomplishment in itself.




Bad Times at the El Royale
Oct 12th; R
Now this is my jam! Drew Goddard has an impeccable record of screenwriting as they note here, and directed The Cabin in the Woods, and I'm feeling some of those vibes in this trailer. It's got a wonderfully large cast including Jeff Bridges, Jon Hamm, Dakota Johnson, and Chris Hemsworth. I have no idea of the plot or what's happening, but I want to see it happen -- and if it has half the style of this trailer with that awesome music usage, then I'm going to have an absolute blast with it.




After Everything
Oct 12th(limited); NR
Rom-com-dram with Maika Monroe. The trailers has some promising wit and energy, but the guy has cancer, so that makes it tempting so fall into cancer-movie cliches. I don't think I'd enjoy it if it did, but I think I'd be willing to see and find out anyway.




Stella's Last Weekend
Oct 12th(limited); NR
Alex and Nat Wolff star in this as brothers, and it's directed by their mom who plays their mom as well, and if that isn't reason enough to see this then what is? The plot has something to do with the last weekend before they put down their sick and aging dong, and there's a girl there who both the brothers like.




Wildlife
Oct 19th(limited); PG-13
If I ever watch this it'll likely be because it's Paul Dano's first film as a director. It's looks like an excellent beginning for him. But I expect it's more of a kind of thing to admire than to love. Carey Mulligan always gives good performances. Jake Gyllenhaal has his moments. I bet Ed Oxenbould is good too.




Mid90's
Oct 19th(limited); NR
And this is Jonah Hill's directorial debut. I like the aspect ratio choice, it really sells the era of the movie. And I like coming-of-age movies so I expect I'll be watching this at some point. Unless there's more going on than appears it won't be a favorite, but I'd be pretty shocked if it isn't worth a look.

The Intern

Spoilers.

In this chick flick by Nancy Meyers, the writer and director of one of my favorite rom-coms, Robert De Niro is Ben, a recently retired widower who gets a job as an intern for a up-and-coming online clothing store run by Jules (Anne Hathaway), a young and inexperienced but dedicated businesswoman.

... Who rides he bike through the workplace to save time. Cute, but those poor people who have to run after her!

Since I liked The Holiday so much, I thought this would certainly be worth a look, considering the nice cast, and the quirky trailer that promised a lighthearted good time. And as it started out it delivered on those promises. The setting in the open floor-space of the business gave everything a breezy feel, so there's a comfortable flow, and a few neat quirks to make it all memorable. It was like a happier, more modern The Devil Wears Prada. Anne Hathaway comes across as a good boss; friendly and kind, if also a perfectionist and not extremely personable. Robert De Niro's Ben is an unfailing optimist and a very classy gentleman, and he pulls off the adorable-old-man vibe perfectly.

I thought that I'd mirror the movie with this review. I started out with some promise and a few positives that seem to be leading in the right direction, but now I'm going to make you wonder how good this review might actually be. That's what the movie did next. As Jules doesn't warm to Ben, things start to stagnate. The super-positive work environment sometimes comes across as insincere; I would feel unnerved like something sinister was going on, or would be very aware that I was watching a movie. We find out that Jules has a family, which seems like an odd rabbit trail. I started liking the supporting characters more than the leads. Then, Ben wins Jules' approval and things appear to head back in the original direction.

Yay felonies! Or is it a misdemeanor? Either way, yay!

That's when the robbery takes place. Sure, in the movie it's just breaking and entering to delete an accidentally sent email, but it sure did feel like a robbery to me. Suddenly the movie's relaxed charm was gone and replaced by unfunny situational comedy that served no other purpose than to extend the run time. In one scene this film went from cute-little-flick to tonally confusing and borderline disaster. But don't worry, it doesn't end there...

It gets much worse! After the original airy tone was discarded, a new one was quickly set in its place. Fortunately, it wasn't the dumb comic one you might expect considering the scene that brought on the change. No, it was actually what I'd call a haphazard melodrama. Either there was not enough girl power in the character of Jules, a woman who built up her own company from nothing with dedication, style, and grace... or too much. I'm not really sure. Which is it when you take a confident businesswoman (who's fair to her employees and so hands-on that she gives out her cell number to clients in case they have problems) and turn her into a weepy mess of indecision and neediness? What is the goal here?

Her face is my reaction to all that. Followed by an eye roll and a face-palm after what happens next.

Eventually, all this movie wants to do is preach to us about feminism, and sexism, and gender roles and things like that. I have my own opinions on those subjects, but no matter what perspective I look at it from, it's not good on a storytelling level. It's not entertaining or compelling here. Jules' home life falls apart because she spends every waking hour working, and then her husband Matt (Anders Holm) "makes a stupid mistake" and cheats on her. Whoops! This very efficiently turns him into that character that typically the female lead is dating at the beginning of the rom-com and eventually is happily rid of, except his speech about how he'll do better actually works. She forgives him, but she continues to work just as much, so everything's hunky-dory, but nothing has changed.

The message the film brings to this is that it wasn't Jules' fault that Matt cheated, which of course is true; so obviously true to me, that I thought it was odd and unnecessary how big a point they made out of it. However, just because Jules' constant absence isn't a free pass or even a bad excuse to cheat doesn't mean that it was okay for her to be such a workaholic, and it's presented that it was. Seriously, in every movie where a man is never home and obsessed with work he's invariably put in a bad light and either is a flawed character that must change, or is an actual villain -- and those morals ring true. Are we really supposed to accept that it's fine that Jules values her job over her family?

I didn't want to get into the politics, but I guess I just did. Oh well.

Back to criticizing the entertainment aspects: Around when the political agenda is heating up is when the entertainment takes the backseat. There's very little comedy left, and everything melts into a puddle of tears -- and unconvincing, unmoving ones at that. Sad characters drag the movie down. Drama appears out of nowhere and tries to pull the plot in awkward directions. Jules' character arc set up at the beginning is abandoned for a cheap, flimsy one, and the problem set up at the beginning of the company needing a CEO is suddenly not nearly so urgent and is dismissed with a wave of the hand. Ben also loses a lot of interest, but does remain the film's most consistent and best character throughout. Other characters are completely forgotten, like Becky (Christina Scherer) who feels undermined and underused, and her suitor (Adam Devine) who's trying to get back into her good graces.

Nat Wolff is in the movie. (I'm just trying to think of some pros.) He's a part of one sequence that is quite funny where Ben is being interviewed for his position and almost none of the questions apply to him. But that was at the beginning of the movie; when it was a good movie with fun and quirky potential. It sure did all fall down fast. And the charming appeal of the beginning only made its speedy and uninspired decline all the more disappointing.

Paper Towns

Spoilers are marked.

This story, adapted from the 2008 novel by John Green, is from the perspective of Quentin, a nice but kinda geeky high school senior who is totally head-over-heels for his neighbor, Margo Roth Spiegleman. Margo is basically the most amazing and popular and epic person there is, and sometimes she disappears randomly and goes on grand adventures, always leaving clues to her whereabouts. When she leaves, and leaves clues for Q to find, he is determined to do what no one else has done for her, and find her.

I adored the book. I liked it better than The Fault in Our Stars. (In spite of a considerably more rocky content terrain.)

It's sad, but I'm going to go ahead and say it: this adaptation does not meet the great levels of the source novel. In many ways, it's not even close. Then, in some other ways it's exactly on, only those are the points that are less important.

Quentin is played by Nat Wolff, and he is Q, through and through. That is, his looks and mannerisms are perfect. However, though he looked perfect, he couldn't bring Q to life; through him we don't get to see into Q's mind and heart. Maybe he had it in him and just wasn't given a proper chance to play the part to the level, but the fact remains that the most alive version of Q is still on the page. I loved Wolff's performance is TFIOS, but this one was not done justice.

At the same time, he was the character that was portrayed with the most justice.

Margo is even worse. The thing is, I'm not sure anyone could have played Margo; how do you cast a person who is indescribably epic, beautiful but not typical, and the epitome of awesome, who everyone wants to be friends with? Answer: you don't. But you can definitely do better than Cara Delevingne. She's not a terrible actress, but she's no Margo. She doesn't impress us with the idea that she is an at all remarkable person, let alone an understandably popular one. Margo's unique draw manifested in the book mostly by her way of speaking -- she speaks like John Green writes -- with unabashed poetic feeling, and with elegance and charisma. Here, she dryly drones out shortened, unembellished versions of her animated speeches and they float to the floor like so much blank paper.

-- Spoilers --
Then, the point of the story was destroyed by having her real self not be so different from her fake, paper, "awesome" self. She doesn't get mad at Q for finding her, she doesn't callously not call her family; she doesn't show that she's a selfish, cold, uncaring and faithless individual; she comes across just as nice and fake as before. Her real side is too fake, and her fake side is too real.
-- End --

Is this who teenagers aspire to be like? Should they?

The supporting cast that includes Austin Abrams as Ben, and Justice Smith as Radar all had the required quirks described in the book, but it was like they and the filmmakers were just going through the motions because they had to, and not because they really cared. A small exception for this goes to Halston Sage as Lacey; she had a moment or two more of genuine success than the guys. Radar's girlfriend Angela (Jaz Sinclair) had an expanded role for no good reason. She was good as far as the rest of them, but wasted more time than her contributions were worth.

Adaption-wise the plot basics were there, but the themes were mostly flip-flopped. This movie took the bold and harsh, but true and moving statements from the book, and changed them so that they meant the exact opposite. Only some basics of a few main themes were left intact, but not to the level of boldness it needed. Dark, gritty things were lightened; deep, heartfelt things were made shallow. Any kind of urgency or importance was totally, wantonly gone. The film also went out of its way to keep as much inappropriate content as it could, sacrificing time that could have been full of meaning for empty dialogue that wasn't even funny most of the time.

I would much rather they'd change the plot events and keep the themes and, you know, the story's point.

As to the non-adapting parts of the film-making, there was one interesting shot that had style, and one fun cameo, and a few highlight scenes and moments; the rest of the movie was confusingly dull and muddled. It droned -- like a toy helicopter that doesn't have enough battery power left to get off the ground. I don't know whether or not the director, Jake Schreier, should be blamed for this, but he seems the most likely option. It was nowhere near as lively, sharp and open as it should have been -- as the novel was. It just sits in the book's shadow. Or it is the book's shadow -- it has nothing more to offer, only less. I'm sorry I have to be so hard on this movie. It's really not a terrible film; only in comparison with what should have been. I can't see it without that influencing me, and neither would I chose to if I could.

Paper Towns is not much more than a paper movie of empty entertainment, with teenagers doing their typical empty teenage things, trying to convince you that that's what fun is, and that's what living is, and love is; preaching that you should be real, and all the while on the inside being just as paper as any other empty teenage dramady.

Upcoming Movie Roundup - July

In June I got out to see Jurassic World (review), and it was every bit as awesome as I wanted and expected it to be. I also saw a May movie, when Far From the Madding Crowd (review) finally showed up at a theater near me. And as to how much I liked it -- I'm in the middle of reading the novel now.

July is chock-full of movies -- as it should be -- and contains at least two must-sees for me! What movies are your must-sees this month?


Terminator Genisys
July1st; PG-13
This one, the newest attempt at reviving the Terminator franchise, released today, so based on critic reviews, I have a pretty good idea of what to think. I'm thinking I'm going to wait for the rental. Spending any more money on it would be a waste according to the pretty terribly sad 26% on RT. The fact that Arnold Schwarzenegger is back for this one is a plus, but I don't like that Anton Yelchin's Kyle Reese was traded in for that dull hunk Jai Courtney. Jason Clark could be cool as John Connor, and I hear Matt Smith is in it, but have yet to see any evidence. And if the twist that appears to be revealed in this trailer really is the twist it appears to be, then I'm thinking I'm going to be feeling more annoyed and confused than excited while watching it.




Aurora
July7th (limited); NR
In a lot of ways this movie looks pretty cliched. Humans, "destroying" the earth get booted out of control by an AI that "knows better" but is really evil and the bad guy. But, who knows, maybe this movie will be the one that finally perfects that plot by being more than it appears to be by the trailer, and then those cliches can be put to rest. Or, maybe it'll be exactly what it seems -- all the cliches, sci-fi action coolness and romance and everything. I still might very well be interested.




Self/Less
July 10th; PG-13
This is the big, mainstream, non sequel or franchise sci-fi movie of the month, so I kinda have doubts of how profound it will actually be, but this trailer certainly does promise lots of things. Ryan Reynolds stars as a dying billionaire (Ben Kingsley) who gets a new body so that his mind can live longer. Complications and mystery ensue. At least, I really really hope mystery ensues. And I hope it's really really complicated too -- in a smart way of course. In all likelihood though, I'm dreaming. Ryan Reynolds certainly doesn't inspire too much faith on that score. I'll be keeping an eye on reviews for this one.




What We Did on Our Holiday
July 10th(limited); PG-13
David Tennant and Rosamund Pike in a British comedy. Done. It looks totally silly and cutesy and light and airy, but I'm fairly sure that there's nothing it could do that would keep me from wanting to see it, or from enjoying at least some of it once I do. The only real question here is "when?"




Ant-Man
July 17th; PG-13
The "when?" for this one is easy: as soon as possible. Ant-Man is my first must-see for this month, which isn't really a surprise considering it's a Marvel movie. Paul Rudd is Ant-Man, Corey Stoll is the villain, Evangeline Lily is there; Michael Douglas, Judy Greer, Michael Pena, and the list goes on and on. I've witnessed others doubting this one (my brother included) but I have a feeling about, like the feeling I had before Guardians of the Galaxy released, and I'm dying to see if I'm right about it. I don't expect it to be as good as GotG of course, but I plan on liking it. A lot. Even if it turns out to be a letdown in terms of Marvel movies, I'm sure I'll still will enjoy it, but, I'm planning on it not being a letdown, but another unexpected surprise, hilarious, epic, fun, and a unique success. Very, very, very highly anticipating this wildcard!




Mr. Holmes
July 17th(limited); PG
Unfortunately this one's not sparking interest with me. I'm sure Ian McKellen does a great job as an aged Sherlock Holmes, and the trailer absolutely looks like a well-made film in every way. But it also looks like the kind of movie I would never really bother to watch. Too sentimental and grit-less perhaps. And why would I want to see all of Holmes' mind-blowing traits and defining skills be debunked? Maybe I'll be wrong and suddenly grow some interest, but it's not happening yet.




Paper Towns
July 24th; PG-13
I certainly want to see this one eventually, but right now I can't imagine it being even close to the greatness of the book it's based on. Many of the thing I adored about the novel seems to be softened and smoothed down for the movie, and that will easily disappoint me. I'm also not sure I like the casting of Cara Delevingne for Margo. Though I do think Nat Wolff will be the perfect Q. And the story is ideal for a movie as long as they're not wimpy about it. Hopefully this one turns out even half a bold as the book, and maybe if I don't get my expectations up too high I'll enjoy it.




Mission: Impossible Rogue Nation
July 31st; PG-13
No chance this one won't be thrilling! Tom Cruise, Jeremy Renner, Simon Pegg, and Ving Rhames are back, and Alec Baldwin appears to be the bad guy. And the stunts have been dully taken up to the next notch, with Tom Cruise hanging on to the outside of an airplane as it takes off -- and you know it all real too because Cruise wouldn't do anything less! As far as I can tell the plot looks smart and fun, but honestly all my requirements for having a blast while watching this movie have already been met. Second must-see of the month of July!

New Trailer - Paper Towns

A month or so ago, I saw that this existed -- a trailer for the new John Green teen novel adaptation. I decided not to watch the trailer immediately though, but to read the book first instead, so as to enhance my reading experience by knowing as little about the story as possible beforehand. I'm glad I waited because the trailer kinda gives away some things -- maybe not spoilers exactly but things that took me by surprise in the book. Here it is:



Based on the book, my impression is that it will makes a good movie. It's not as deep and profound as The Fault in Our Stars perhaps, but is certainly as relevant -- if not more -- and has a message that I like better. Casting looks good to me. The only actor I've seen before here is Nat Wolff -- he played Isaac, Gus and Hazel's blind friend in TFIOS, and I think is ideal casting for Q, the hero of Paper Towns.

Margo and Quentin.

It's hard to tell from a trailer about the people I've never watched before, but they do look promising. Of course, the standards set for Margo, the female lead, and pretty unattainably high. It's like trying to cast The Great Jay Gatsby -- even the most esteemed actors (like Leonardo DiCaprio) seem to lack the finesse to play such a character. (Yes John Green, I just compared your Margo Roth Spiegelman to Jay Gatsby -- I hope you would be happy at that!) Cara Delevingne is better known as a model than an actress, but does have a strangely, intensely striking quality to her, so based on that the chances of her living up to the name seem reasonable.

The trailer promises to be a faithful adaptation, with only details left out or changed from the book, much like TFIOS, and that is a big plus, but also completely expected. I do worry a bit that the grittier parts may be left out though. If they succeed with the adapting, and put half as much heart that was put into The Fault in Our Stars movie, or a tenth of the heart Green put in his book, then it should be a movie worth searching out.

What do you think of the trailer? Want to see Paper Towns, or no? Have you read the book? Tell me in the comments!

The Fault in Our Stars

This is a spoiler-free review.

And, this is my 100th post on this blog! So I just wanted to take a moment to say thank you to all my readers. I appreciate your support and encouragement -- you are all wonderful. Here's to the next 100! Now on to The Fault in Our Stars...

Hazel Grace Lancaster (Shailene Woodley) has cancer in her lungs. Terminal. It's really a miracle she's lasted as long as she has. But she's still dying, and she's depressed (it's a side-effect of dying) and worried about the scar she'll leave behind when the inevitable happens. So her ever patient mom (Laura Dern) sends her to a cancer support group where she has one friend -- sorta -- a soon-to-be blind dude named Isaac. (Nat Wolff) Augustus Waters (Ansel Elgort) had cancer at one point, and lost his leg to it, but now he's okay. He comes to the support group to, well, support his soon-to-be blind friend Isaac. And there, Hazel and Gus meet.

And with an opening like that, you can be sure that angst-filled romance is to follow.

In case you didn't know, this movie is based on the novel of the same name by John Green. It's an extremely popular book, but I'm usually not big on teen romances, especially if there's fatal illnesses involved. (And that was a big understatement.) But armed with an understanding of the awesomeness of the author, and the promise that it was better than a typical cancer romance, I gave it a shot. And if all sappy teen romance novels were as good as The Fault in Our Stars, then I probably would have read more than just one in my life.

Gus, Isaac, and Hazel may not look like much -- between the three of them they have five legs, four eyes, and two and a half working pairs of lungs. But they also have two dozen eggs.

So, as it always is with novels and their film adaptations, I already knew the best version of the story (the original is the best by rule) which I think helped and hindered my enjoyment of the film at the same time.

It helped in ways like making me even more impressed by already impressive acting and characterization through of my previous knowledge of the characters. Shailene Woodley was guaranteed to be a perfect Hazel from the very beginning, and she didn't disappoint. She is sweet and sullen and honest and caring and endearing and everything Hazel is supposed to be -- except not a teenager. She fakes it well of course, and Hazel is a mature sixteen-year-old anyway. Ansel Elgort matches Woodley's acting stroke for stroke for his part, and makes a very charming, adorable and accurate Gus. With the story belonging to Hazel, he received more of the dreaded Chopping Block of Adaptation, but managed wonderfully in spite of it. The two make as great pair, and I especially love how their friendship shines through their relationship more often than romantic tension.

They were obviously having fun with their roles, but not too much to spoil the performances.

 
Often with adaptations, the source material is only used as "more what you'd call 'guidelines' than actual rules," so much so that occasionally you wonder if the writers' book was actually different from yours. The best though, are always done treating the book as a rule book, and that is what was done here. And it lands this film somewhere in my top five best book-to-film adaptations. Having John Green involved in the filming probably helped, fear of the wrath of the fans probably helped, but the biggest factor I'd say is very simple: the book demands its respect; it is unquestionably its best version this story could be. The filmmakers knew that, so they made it as similar as possible. Changes are minute and usually insignificant. But -- there are exclusions, as there always are.

Here is where knowledge of the book hindered my enjoyment. There isn't much original material that could be qualified as bad or unnecessary, so good parts are left out. Some being amongst my favorites; things I was anticipating seeing acted out on screen. It's the nature of the beast, but it still leaves empty spaces wanting to be filled. And being catered to the General Audience -- a relentlessly shallow creature -- it felt less personal than the novel.

I guess I just favored the less commonly liked parts more.

I wish I could separate the two, and judge the film without reference to the book, but they are so similar that I start every paragraph with the intention of doing just that, and still wind up using the word "adaptation" again. The film is the book, but less; and the best I can say about their differences is this: the film's best parts are different from the book's best parts, and that was very interesting and pleasing to see.

Watching the story rather than reading was enjoyable in a different way, and that plus the all-around fantastic performances from thoughtfully cast actors, and the simple, lovely look makes the film well worthy of its existence. It may not go as deep as the book, but it still goes deeper than any other films of its type that I can think of. The sap and the sentiment are both layered on as thick as it can get, but finds plenty to balance it with on the other side, with delightful light comedy and moments of honesty and sincerity. At the film's opening, our heroine tells us that there are two ways to tell sad stories: sugar-coat it, or tell it how it is. I think in this case though, the best route was taken, and it was neither; but rather a mix of sugar and honesty that made a happy, and sad, and heartfelt medium.

The fault, dear Brutus, is not is our stars / But in ourselves, that we are underlings. -- William Shakespeare