Upcoming Movie Roundup - September

I didn't see a single movie in theaters in August, so I guess that means the summer season is over. I still want to see the indies I mentioned, but will have to wait for them. I did watch The Defenders on Netflix, and it was worse than my low expectations were expecting; absolutely pathetic, and the worst thing Netflix's Marvel has done, which is pretty incredible to me considering the long build-up the show had. Check out my review here.

As it stands, there's no big releases of September I'll definitely be seeing in theaters either, though there's plenty of interesting releases to keep an eye on, and hopefully at least watch at home. What looks good to y'all this month? I hope you all had a fantastic summer!


It
Sept 8th; R
For some reason I feel like this movie is capitalizing on the success of Stranger Things. Maybe because Finn Wolfhard is in it, maybe because it really does have that flavor. Of course, IT existed first. So I always say I'm not a horror movie person, but whenever something like this comes along I find myself interested. This isn't your average cheap scary movie, but the scarier something is the more "worth it" it needs to be. And this looks like the absolute most terrifying thing I've ever had even an inclining to watch! If I had to venture a guess about the quality right now I'd say it's going to be high -- really high. But it also look pretty freaking scary, so. It stars the talented Jaeden Lieberher, and Bill Skarsgard of the Skarsgard acting family as Pennywise.




Anti Matter
Sept 8th; NR
This one claims to be a scifi noir which immediately grabbed my attention, but the trailer is just... odd. It does have a strong mystery element to it, and there's definitely scifi too, but the style could be more appealing. The visual style seems to lean more scifi than noir, which is all too often the case I find, but it does have style at least, so that's already ahead of the curve. Anyway this is the sort of movie you watch because of the genre and premise regardless of what the trailer looks like. This is the sort of thing I'd love to watch at home out of pure curiosity if I ever see it streaming, with not a whole lot of expectation, either low or high.




The Limehouse Golem
Sept 8th(limited); NR
British period mystery yes please. A "before Jack the Ripper" tale in the 1800s, with Bill Nighy as the detective, with Olivia Cooke, Douglas Booth, and ever-fantastic Eddie Marsan who supports the heck out of everything he supports. This looks like a classic British mystery in a borderline typical way, but even if it is, I think I'd prefer it that way, especially if it's done well. Will keep an eye out!




Rebel in the Rye
Sept 15th; PG-13
Nicholas Hoult looks pretty strange with brown eyes. This is a biopic about J.D. Salinger, who wrote The Catcher in the Rye, and I haven't read The Catcher in the Rye. It looks like the sort of thing I'd enjoy as a writer, but based on the few reviews around, it's not worth much. A case of wasted potential, it appears. At any rate, I wouldn't let myself watch it before reading the guy's book, but it does have Kevin Spacey and Sarah Paulson besides Hoult, and looks like a good drama on the surface.




Mother!
Sept 15th; NR
Well this one's already been making waves ever since the trailer first dropped, but it's also one of those cases where I'm not in on the joke. Even if it turned out appropriate enough that I want to bother with it, which is unlikely, I still have no obsession with Darren Aronofsky, having never seen a single movie of his, and my like of Jennifer Lawrence is dwindling at best. It's a psychological thriller, which produces idle curiosity over what the twist is, but otherwise doesn't seem to promise anything worthwhile beyond an extremely memorable style. I expect the day I watch this is the day I had nothing better to do. Javier Bardem co-stars.




American Assassin
Sept 15th(limited); R
So I guess Dylan O'Brien wants to be an action star. Good -- because he's really good at it. The energy he brings to his action is extremely unique and entertaining. I'm not a fangirl, but I'd watch this guy play in action flicks all day long. And that's the main appeal of this film, though it does have Michael Keaton in it, and what looks like a fun-while-being-super-serious kind of plot.




Brad's Status
Sept 15th(limited); R
Ben Stiller's back. For some reason I like Ben Stiller, especially when he's in dramedies and indies. The appeal of this one really is just him and the rest of the cast. Austin Abrams of Paper Towns is his son, Jenna Fischer is his wife, and Michael Sheen, Luke Wilson and Jemaine Clement are his more "successful" friends. Sounds nice. Sounds like I don't even care what the plot is.




Kingsman: The Golden Circle
Sept 22nd; R
I gave a favorable review to the first one, but the last half bothered me. I re-watched it recently and now firmly believe that while stylish, and charming on the surface, it isn't nearly as smart as it thinks it is, and has little going on under the surface. That's not to say this one won't be good, or even that I won't see it. I'm not sure. It's just to say that I'm not head-over-heels, and won't be holding out much hope that this sequel will be any improvement. The success of the first implies this will be more of the same, which is hardly ever an improvement, and almost always a relative let-down. But Taron Egerton is still here and being charming so it can only sink so far. Mark Strong is back too. Colin Firth returning is far-fetched, but I suppose that's the whole point!




The Lego Ninjago Movie
Sept 22nd; PG
I'd be very surprised if this ends up being even in the same ballpark of quality as The Lego Movie or even The Lego Batman Movie, but it exists, so hey, you might as well watch it! That's maybe not the best thing to say. It is important that movies try to have good quality after all, and this one is probably mostly just banking on the success of the previously mentioned, but the trailer does provide a few giggles, so that's not nothing. Voice talents of Dave Franco, Justin Theroux, and Jackie Chan will be heard.




American Made
Sept 29th; R
This is the sort of movie that looks good, but I just don't care. Tom Cruise is making up for The Mummy apparently; the story is light and full of comedy but is also based on a true story so that different and fun; and it's got a unique style to it, maybe coming from the era. It looks like a worthwhile watch, but is the sort of thing I wouldn't ever see unless it was convenient. In short, it looks great, and forgettable. Dohmnall Gleeson is also in it though.




Realive
Sept 29th; NR
Pronounced "re-alive" not "real-ive" I assume. Overlooking the kinda bad title, this is an interesting scifi movie to me, because it takes an idea that is very popular -- cryogenically freezing yourself when you're dying until the science is invented to save you -- and applies it in the most realistic way I've ever seen in a movie premise. Like, why has no one thought of making a movie from this perspective before? From the trailer it looks like it's told from a realistic perspective, though who knows how it plays out. Tom Hughes stars, and the movie promises a bit of romance as well. Gotta watch those scifi movies!

Upcoming Movie Roundup - February

In January I accomplished my oh-so-ambitious plan of seeing one movie in the theaters! La La Land was excellent and worth the wait. Here's my gushy review. Of the TV shows I talked about last month, Sherlock was such a sad failure. (I'm not mad, I'm just... disappointed.) Here are my untempered thoughts on that. Netflix's A Series of Unfortunate Events was an absolute hit for me though -- everything that I hoped the new attempt at an adaptation would do was done every bit as excellently as I dreamed. I haven't reviewed it though, and I'm not sure I will. If you're interested to read a review of it from me, let me know! But just know that I highly recommend it! I've also been watching Emerald City on NBC. It's not great, but is good enough that we haven't quit yet. The promise of a definite end is definitely what's keeping me in. Anyone else watching this? I'd love to hear your thoughts on it!

February is back to normal with a nice wide spread of interesting releases -- most of which I'll be looking out for reviews on. There's no huge must-see, but I'll be very surprised if we don't go see The Lego Batman Movie!

What looks good to you this month?


The Space Between Us
Feb 3rd; PG-13
This one's based on a book, so of course now I'm more interesting in reading it than I am watching it... although I do like Asa Butterfield, and Britt Robertson isn't bad. The thing is, the most appealing side of this is the space/Mars stuff, but it looks like he's gonna spend most of his time (and therefore most of the movie's time) on Earth. And then it's in serious danger of being just another fish-out-of-water rom-com, which would be a waste of the premise in my opinion.




The Lego Batman Movie
Feb 10th; PG
Will Arnett's Batman gets his very own very well-deserved movie! There's been so many trailers that we've probably seen most of the movie already, and it's unlikely this one will have the same real-world connection as The Lego Movie did. But gosh, so far I've seen nothing that is short of hilarious with this film's advertising, and it seems to set up for a good amount of depth too. So even if it's not as exceptional as The Lego Movie, I'm excited for a fun time at the theater with the best Batman ever!




A United Kingdom
Feb 10th; PG-13
Looks like a decent romance, and probably a political drama too. Not at all my favorite genres, but I thought it was worth mentioning. There's been a lot of movies lately with themes focused on racism, so if this one wants to stand out it would need to be a worthwhile story, (and perhaps have something new to say on the subject too) and of that, it's hard to tell from the trailer. It is done by the director of Belle though, and that's a promising sign.




The Great Wall
Feb 17th; PG-13
Dear Matt Damon -- What are you doing, buddy? You were in The Martian, and now this? Okay, as far as action-centered lite fantasy films go, this one looks like it could be fun, and will probably be at least decently entertaining from the its visual alone. As far as all that goes. I don't get Matt Damon in this, though. What's the appeal -- for him and for us? There's so many other actors that could have played the part, probably do better on the action side, and not waste their acting chops... but hey, maybe I'm missing something. Or... maybe not.




A Cure for Wellness
Feb 17th; R
If it weren't for the too-hard-for-me rating this might've been the most interesting movie of the month. Dane DeHaan and Jason Isaacs are typically great, the plot is intriguingly crazy and mysterious, and it is visually both creepy and spectacular. If it turns out as good as it looks, I'll look forward to an opportunity to see it. However I'm not counting on it -- it could very well be one of those films that edits together a memorable trailer out of a lot of good-looking nonsense.




Collide
Feb 24th; PG-13
Nicholas Hoult. Felicity Jones. Action flick. I mean, even if it is otherwise the worst movie on the face of the Earth it's still gotta be worth watching just for that, right? Also Ben Kingsley and Anthony Hopkins support. The appeal of the cast makes the any issue of the movies quality pretty much obsolete -- I'm gonna want to watch this no matter what. It doesn't look like it has the most original plot or ideas, but I seriously doubt it'll be the worst movie ever either. In fact, it looks quite fun and action-packed!




Legion
FX starting Feb 8th
Some crazy stuff is about to go down. This new Marvel TV series stars Dan Stevens as the X-Man Legion, and... the trailers don't make any sense and promise all kinds of crazy-cool mind-bending. I only know the basics about this character, but it wouldn't make a difference if I knew nothing at all. It's Marvel. It's Dan Stevens. It looks like this. What else do you need to know? Oh, Aubrey Plaza is in it too -- that's just icing. Definitely excited for this!

Equals

Some mild spoilers.

In this cold, pristine future, people are emotionally stunted on purpose. At conception the babies DNA is damaged to remove those emotions and human desires that are so inconvenient and dangerous. And thus they grow up smoothly into good workers and passive citizens. Except, occasionally they get the emotions back. This is considered a disease called SOS (Switched On Syndrome). The search is on for a cure, but until then, it's a fatal disease -- because once the "sick" reach a certain point they are locked up and encouraged to commit suicide.

Good grief I love science fiction.

Silas (Nicholas Hoult) is an average citizen, with a good job as a concept artist with the space program. (It's a scientifically advanced futuristic society -- of course there's a space program!) But, worried after he has nightmare, he goes for a check-up, and is diagnosed with SOS, stage 1. Now socially pitied and politely outcast he is slowly and unwillingly overcome with feeling. Soon he notices a girl who he has always worked with, but sees differently now. Nia (Kristen Stewart) seems to have SOS too, but she hides it better than he. A forbidden romance blooms.

At that point all the neat science fiction stuff is exhausted. The world is a lot like Gattaca, with the hard, clean, cold look and the genetic "enhancements," mixed with the ideology of The Giver. It's a world that allows this romance to thrive, and once the romance gets going it takes over, and the setting just becomes a background. I'm not against romance in sci-fi -- in fact I'm a fan of it, but the level of intense focus it gets here is less my thing. It wasn't so much about characters getting to know each other and falling in love so much as it was two characters discovering sensuality together. There was a lot of physical romance, but practically none that was intellectual.

This is the kind of stuff I'd rather assume takes place rather than have to watch 10-15 minutes of.

Nicholas Hoult I usually enjoy, and did here too. Early in the movie when he was being emotionless and robotic, I had a difficulty getting immersed. I was hyper aware of it all being a production, with actors acting. I only got pulled in once he is diagnosed -- because of the way aloof-Silas is affected by the bad news. It was subtle, and rang true. It always surprises me when I enjoy Kristen Stewart, but it happens more often than not. This is not my favorite movie with her, but she is well-cast in this part. Her stony gaze that visibly hides something boiling underneath is used to great effect here. Nia and Silas spend too much time cuddling and not enough time developing character, but they start off well enough that they're a worthy investment anyway.

In supporting roles are Guy Pearce and Jacki Weaver. They both have smaller roles than you'd really expect out of people of their acting caliber, but hey, I'm not complaining. They weren't there enough to overshadow the youngsters, but also expanded the cast well so that the roles they took wouldn't be forgettable. Jacki Weaver is a master, and I'm always pleased to see Guy Pearce appear in movies.

They definitely helped enhance the movie. Lent it credibility.

The biggest source of disappointment for me with Equals was that the world was too small. A bigger budget, or more effort put into expanding the world to outside the city would have been appreciated by me. I wanted to see the contrast of that, the primitive red chaos with the pristine blue order, but the only glimpse we get of the outer world is in a piece of art. Near the end the story seemed to begin stalling for time anyway, and I'd have loved to have seen that time devoted to an anti-climax that features world-building again. Oh well.

One of the coolest things about the movie was the coloring. White and grey lit cool blue, with significant highlights of warm oranges and reds. And the warm colors seemed to signify or symbolize emotion. I believe it's introduced when we first notice signs of feeling in Nia, and later it is used more and more when characters give over to their emotions. That was fun to notice. Also style-wise, cinematography: I liked the close-up method, with the constant adjusting of focus and framing. Otherwise the filming was artsy and complementary to the cold world too, with modern framing and contrasts. But the handheld was often used with the elegant full shots too, and the shaking was distracting and out of place next to the modern architecture and just-so staging.

Like our heroes are out of place in their world... but in a bad way.

Things got dodgy there for a while and I worried that was wasting my time on another indie film that gets carried away from itself in directionless artistic endeavors, but in the end it was appropriately satisfying, and appropriately ambiguous. It's not particularly big, nor particularly meaningful, but Equals keeps its eye on what it wants to be -- a quietly passionate forbidden romance set against a cold scifi world -- and manages to stick with it til the end.

X-Men: Apocalypse

Some spoilers... though there's not much to spoil.

I've finally had to admit to myself that I'm just not a fan of the rebooted X-Men franchise. It seems crazy. How could I not like a superhero franchise? That has so many favorite actors in it no less? I look at that cast of the new X-Men films -- particularly this one -- and think there's no way I could possibly not love the movie they all inhabit. Not to mention they all play such cool characters. Yet, here I am again, underwhelmed after an X-Men movie -- and this one more so than ever.

"What does this button do?" "That makes the movie more interesting. Never push that button Hank."

This time Oscar Isaac steps up to the plate as the villain: Apocalypse, an ancient, powerful being -- the original mutant, who had been slumbering for the past couple thousand years, but has now been awakened. (Side point: was it actually Rose Byrne's fault he woke up? Cause those men were doing the chanting, but it seemed like to me it only worked because she forgot to close the door and sunlight got in. Like, they've been going down there and chanting daily for hundreds of years, and this is the first time someone accidentally left the door open? Anyway...) Apocalypse doesn't exactly like how earth has changed since he ruled it and means to do some spring cleansing before he takes office.

The most disappointing aspect of this film might actually be that Oscar Isaac is unrecognizable in his role. And I get that in his normal state he doesn't exactly exude the kind of power and menace a character called Apocalypse would require, but seriously, covering his face in prosthetics and digitally changing his voice was not the answer. Cast someone else. Or just let him act. I spent the whole movie trying to recognize him (knowing that it was him!) and it only came through in a brief glimmer one time -- in his voice. He didn't even get to do any acting; he just delivered a bunch of speeches in a deep, digitally altered dramatic voice. Anyone could have done it! The final blow was of course that he didn't have the superpower to grow into a giant like the trailer implied. Turns out the most powerful mutant ever needs others to do everything for him, and can't take on more than one person at a time in a fight.

The only thing he really has is good persuasive skills, to convince people to work for him.

Out of all three of the rebooted X-Men films, this one is oddly the least epic and on the smallest scale. That really surprised me. It's called Apocalypse; shouldn't the scale be, I don't know, apocalyptic? The final battle took place within about a square block -- making the Avengers and Superman jealous I'm sure -- and was so sadly static. It bothers me when superheroes destroy entire cities carelessly, but at least other films do a lot of moving around to produce the destruction. Here, we have the worst of both worlds, with Erik just sitting there and whoom -- everything's destroyed. Then they just kick back and have a battle that would have done very little damage otherwise.

That's the brunt of my complaining. Then there's a few things I'm more neutral to, and a few things I liked. On the neutral front come Charles and Erik. They're the main characters, but they never have interested me much as such. I like Michael Fassbender and I like what was done with the character of Charles under James McAvoy in this film, but it really seems like they're only the main characters because Hugh Jackman only gets a cameo. X-Men films are best when they're led by Wolverine, and that's a fact. So the movie spends a lot of time focusing on Charles and Erik, doing the same things they've always done, and while it's not exactly bad, (except for that super unlucky accident that started Erik up on his "villain or no?" arc yet again -- that earned a hearty "come on!" from me) it's not exactly compelling to me either.

You know, now that the timeline has been changed, you don't need to contrive reasons for Erik to be a bad guy...

What I did find compelling was, amazingly, one of the things I was most looking forward to. That is, Tye Sheridan playing Scott/Cyclops and Kodi Smit-McPhee playing Kurt/Nightcrawler. I was looking forward to them because they're talented actors and since I've already enjoyed the older versions of the characters, I thought it would be neat to see them take the parts. I underestimated how good this aspect would actually be. Firstly, Tye Sheridan was perfect casting for Scott. I actually saw James Marsden in him, like he could actually grow up into him. Characterization could have used so much more, but at least that's a testament to how much potential he had.

And Kurt was even better. He got a small arc, but it was complete and interesting. And seriously, the kid is so charming. He was by far the funniest character (even though Quicksilver was there) and had that adorable naivete and a tragic but unexploited backstory. Right now I just wish this had been like a teen comedy where Scott, Kurt, Jean, and friends do typical high school things with a super-powered twist and then in the end have to go save the day like they do (in the best part of the movie I might add) and that's it. I would watch the heck out of that movie!

The trio. Why couldn't they be the movie's main characters?

I should mention while I'm on the subject that Sophie Turner as Jean Grey is very good too. I've never felt the biggest connection with the character, but this version of her is sympathetic and as good as ever. Also Evan Peters as Quicksilver; the problem of his being too powerful to participate in the climax they cut off at the pass, but then they had to backtrack a little, because they didn't want him to actually tell Erik he's his son? Whatever. I still like the characterization, but his big scene felt very much like "Quicksilver Saves the Day: The Sequel." It was bigger, and longer, but by no means better.

It's a strange day when there's a movie starring Jennifer Lawrence and Nicholas Hoult and I spend all my time talking about everyone else, but as cool as these two are, they spend this movie treading water so there's not much to say. It's also pretty sad that the politics of the X-Men movies is usually what annoys me, yet this one had next to none and I didn't like the film any better. My overall experience was just enjoying the characters as they came in small doses -- particularly the Scott/Jean/Kurt trio -- being mildly bored in between, and then being underwhelmed by the smallness of the ending. There wasn't a whole lot to hate, and neither was there a whole lot to love.

Quicksilver attempts to save everyone from the movie's wreckage. It's unclear whether he is successful.

Since I'm big on characters, the film manages to tip to the positive side. The plot in uninspired, and a lot of characters were only there because they could be, or because it is expected, but there was enough that was worthwhile to bring the rest of the film along with it. So I guess I'm not an X-Men fan, but right now, that's working out for me. I can still enjoy what I can out of the films, but I'm not invested enough to care when there's failings. The X-Men -- the characters and the talent that portrays them -- deserve better films than ones like this, but until they get them, I'll be taking them as I can for what they are.

Mad Max: Fury Road

Spoiler-free.

What this intense, non-stop action thrill ride of apocalyptic proportions lacks by way of meaning, it makes up for with style points. Style points for days. This film's fuel is style points, and it came prepared for a very long road trip. With style.

Visually, 100% epic and 100% beautiful.

Okay, I think I overdid it now. This movie's plot requires too much explanation to explain and isn't exactly important anyway, so I'll just go with this: Tom Hardy is Max, and he spends a lot of time with Charlize Theron, Nicholas Hoult, and some hot girls, during what is essentially a two-hour-long car chase through the open orange desert of post-apocalyptic Australia.

And seriously, the style is the best thing about this film. It was nominated for every academy award it qualified for except those for acting, scripting, and scoring. And it won 6 out of 10, so that should tell you a lot. Scoring I almost never really notice, but I didn't think this one was particularly good or bad. Acting was not Oscar-worthy in any way, but that hardly means it was bad. But the writing was certainly this flick's downfall -- comparatively, anyway. Since it's a huge action film I seriously doubt it was trying to achieve a whole lot on those fronts it doesn't make much of a difference, but they're worth mentioning all the same.

Nicholas Hoult had the surprise best character of the movie. "What a lovely day!"

For the leads, the acting was just underused. I actually really enjoyed Nicholas Hoult's performance quite a lot. He was unexpected, amusing, and, as Hoult's characters always are, charming. However, he wasn't written as interestingly as he might have been when it came down to the end. Really, the only character who makes it through the third act without diminishing their interest was Max himself. And that was because he had no actual drama until then in the first place. Tom Hardy did a great job with the action side of things, but never got a chance to try anything more. Therone made a good lead for the emotional side of the film with her hardcore and stoic one-armed woman, but never goes beyond that. Still it's an action film with a huge emphasis on action, so it really was more than good enough.

His movie in name only.

Writing also slacked a little in the plotting of the drama. The overly-dramatic and serious drama didn't annoy me or anything -- it worked for the tone and rating of the film -- but at the same time it was never able to bring me to truly care. I wasn't invested in the lives or the success of the endeavors of the characters. And honestly, that did matter a little. I was still able to appreciate the style points that were everywhere, but style can only get you so far.

But, because of this film, we now know exactly how far style can take you -- because this film set the new standard. Everything that is required to make a great, thrilling action flick, this barreling fireball has in spades. It really says a lot about the action when it can hold your attention for a whole hour-and-a-half with a grand total of only two brief pauses and never breaks a sweat. This is no Michael Bay or Zack Snyder film where the longer the battle goes the more bored you get; George Miller and Fury Road knows how to intertwine the plot into the action to keep the momentum going, and mix things up without ever applying the brakes. On that score, the writing is impressive.

His guitar shoots flames, and that is everything.

The best quality though, is the visuals. Constantly, consistently, dazzlingly brilliant and sharp, the special effects, the visual effects, and just the whole look and way the action was presented here is striking, and extremely memorable. It was filmed very cleanly, so you always know what's going on and don't get left behind with the fast pace. The coloring is incredible and the world equally shiny as it is gritty. And the stunts -- all the moves and tricks are all so unique, there was multiple times when I just burst out laughing out of sheer enjoyment of the craziness going on onscreen. Sometimes a movie doesn't need anything besides an excuse to go for a thrill-ride, and the means to make it a memorable one.

Upcoming Movie Roundup - July

Last month was theater-free for me. Warcraft tempted me a few times, as did May's X-Men: Apocalypse, and I even made an agreement with my brothers that if Independence Day: Resurgence got good enough reviews we'd go see all three -- but it didn't, and we didn't see the other two either. However, I did finally see one March movie that I would have gone to the theater for if it had actually played in my theater -- Midnight Special! I took a small risk and bought it, pretty confident that I'd like it and it paid off spectacularly! Not only did I love the film more than enough to want to watch it multiple times, it was also worth it for some neat and informing special features. A review will be incoming soon, but I'll go ahead and say that I strongly recommend it.

How was your month of June? And how is your July looking? Happy Summer!


The Legend of Tarzan
Jul 1st; PG-13
I'm pretty much only mentioning this one because I thought it looked interesting before any reviews came out.  Now, of course, it seems obvious that it would be no good -- now that I've actually sat down and watched the trailer. I didn't expect it'd be great, but I probably should have seen a low RT score like this coming. The adventure appeal of it distracted me a little. And someday, if ever I can get it for free and am feeling resilient to disappointment, I probably won't be able to help myself from watching it for that same reason.




The BFG
Jul 1st; PG
The latest from Steven Spielberg is a kiddie movie based on a book. Giants and magic and sweeping music is involved. I like Spielberg (who doesn't?) and the cast has Mark Rylance and Jemaine Clement who are great (but they're both playing animated giants so you can't actually see them, though the BFG does look quite a lot like Rylance (I actually recognized his face before I did his voice)) and it looks like a good kid's adventure movie, but maybe not quite to the point where it'd be a great movie for adults too. Especially for people like me who don't have a sentimental attachment. Still, the director and cast practically guarantees that I'll wind up seeing it someday. And I wouldn't be surprised if I enjoyed it.




Ghostbusters
Jul 15th; PG-13
Da-da da-da. Dada da-da da-da. Okay, no. I debated even mentioning this one, but decided to so that I could voice my opinion of how much I wish this movie didn't even exist. Based on the epic number of dislikes on the trailer, most people share my opinion, but I wanted to make my view clear anyway. Set out to attempt to destroy the classic by association, and so steeped in extreme feminism that all criticism of it has been (and probably will continue to be) labeled sexist, this is a film that I am happy to announce I will completely avoid for all eternity. The trailer is painfully unfunny, and the idea is completely pointless. Who you gonna call? The real, ORIGINAL Ghostbusters.




Cafe Society
Jul 15th; PG-13
Woody Allen's latest venture is set in the 30's, and focuses on the glamorous life of society people in Hollywood and New York through the eyes of Jesse Eisenberg. Also starring Kristen Stewart, Blake Lively, Steve Carell, and Corey Stoll. This one seems slightly similar to Midnight in Paris which is my favorite of Allen's films. It look like it has lots of vintage style and classic Allen-esque quirky conversations. Early reviews aren't as promising as my previously mentioned favorite's, but I think it'll turn out to be worth a look.




Equals
Jul 15th; PG-13
Another Kristen Stewart movie. Sometimes I surprise myself by watching her movies, but then I remember that I've never actually disliked her in anything -- and she's slowly wearing off the stain of Twilight... Anyway in this one Nicholas Hoult co-stars and it's a sci-fi, so it certainly has my attention. It does look very moody though, and that may very well be a downfall. But I'm pretty sure I'm gonna have to find out for myself.




Star Trek Beyond
Jul 22nd; Not rated yet
This is hands-down the most exciting release of the month, yet it has a a very sad side to it, because of the untimely and tragic death of Anton Yelchin who plays the fan-favorite Chekov. He will be sorely missed in the years to come. Beyond doesn't have the guaranteed success that Into Darkness seemed to either because of the new director coming on board. However, I think, and have thought from the first that this installment looks every bit as good as the last one. I like the episodic, smaller-scale nature it seems to be bringing, and am very excited to see how Simon Pegg's script turned out. A definite must-see!




Jason Bourne
Jul 29th; PG-13
Bourne is back and bigger than ever. Actually, I'm not sure "bigger than ever" is a good thing; at some point things are going to go over the top, and the grounded feel of the previous Matt Damon Bourne's was a huge part of the appeal. However, I doubt it'll matter much -- this film looks solid. With Damon and Greengrass back, how could it not? Julia Stiles is back too, and it's also got Tommy Lee Jones, and Alicia Vikander, which means promises of good things. This may very well be a must-see as well!

Young Ones

Spoiler-free.

Young Ones is a genre mashup of western and science fiction. Think of Cowboys & Aliens. Then think of the exact opposite of that. That is this movie.

In the near future (ah, I love the near future -- a place of infinite possibilities in storytelling) the land is experiencing a severe drought. Farmland has turned to desert, and the farmers have left in search of water; but not Ernest (Michael Shannon). Ernest believes that the water will return and all he needs to do is wait for it while taking care of his land, and his family: His rebellious daughter Mary (Elle Fanning) who is dating his neighbor's shady son Flem (Nicholas Hoult) without his consent, and his son Jerome (Kodi Smit-McPhee) who he teaches everything he knows, and who follows eagerly in his footsteps.

Written and directed by Jake Paltrow.

As a sci-fi and as a western, this movie takes the subtle approach. On the western side it's unusual just because it's set in a modern time. Besides the desert, it looks more like sci-fi, but its themes are distinctly, classically western. The look is sci-fi, and even quite dystopian with people doing things like washing dishes with sand and always looking dusty because that's how rare water is. There's also some real-life leading edge technology on display, and some that seems only just out of our reach, like a robotic rigging system that allows the family's paralyzed mother to walk herself around like a puppet. But there are no aliens or anything of the like, so the sci-fi remains very grounded and realistic.

But mostly this film's style is independent. Even bordering on art house type stuff. There's very little exposition, no audience pandering, and large amounts of symbolism and telling the story through camerawork rather than only through the script. Instead the script devotes its spoken lines to sounding realistic. At the beginning we seem to have come across this family in the middle of their story, and at the end we leave them to continue on without us. Conversations develop naturally and have that classic indie feel. You have to dig in a little to glean character development from them, and they are rich and memorable. I loved the scenes between Ernest and Jerome especially.

The robotic mule is a 'Big Dog" built by Boston Dynamics.

In fact, I really liked Michael Shannon in this film. Before, I'd only seen him play bad guys and side characters, which was enjoyable enough, but I've always figured he'd really grab my attention someday, and today is that day. Ernest is established so resolutely, and it's immediately obvious that the film will never be able to explore all the sides of his character even if it tried. He strongly evokes characteristics of hardened, on-edge ranchers of the old west, who mow down villains without a second thought, but are also dedicated family men. The film's first act is his, and later when the film shifts focus (to Flem in the second act and finally Jerome in the third) the absence of the charisma he brought to the screen was noticeable. Not to say the rest wasn't good; I just mean to point out that he was especially dynamic.

Kodi Smit-McPhee's performance as Jerome is second on the impressive list -- which is impressive in itself since Nicholas Hoult and Elle Fanning are also in the cast. Jerome is who the story is really about in a fitting coming of age plot line, and it was really neat to watch him develop from the kid who just follows his father, to a young man who takes charge on his own. By the end he has developed his own uniquely commanding presence.

Nicholas Hoult was interesting, playing a bad guy for an odd change. He was a good choice for the part because he plays bad well, but also I was influenced by all the distinctly good and innocent characters he's played, which created a neat conflict as I tried to figure out the character. Elle Fanning I think did a good job. Her character really annoyed me, but I think she was supposed to. So she was basically in the same boat as Hoult, but it didn't work as well for the movie.

"In a future without water vengeance will rain." Now that's a tagline. Too bad the film's title isn't so good.

Young Ones has mixed reviews from critics, but one thing everyone agrees on is that it's visually spectacular. The location in South Africa was beautiful and the practical effects helped out, but what I loved most was the camera work. Not just the framing of a shot to encompass the beauty of what was there, but the movement too. The camera was very often in motion -- panning through wide shots or utilizing extreme zooming to create several shots in one -- and that motion drove the film forward; keeping the plot from sinking into monotone. It also added interest to the film's artistic side, creating symbolism or deepening the story and performances. Imagery was the biggest impression this film left on me.

It is arguable that this film lacks in plot and character development. At first I wasn't quite sure what to make of it. I certainly wanted to see more character, plus I didn't "get" a few details, and thought that I missed some of the symbolism that would have gave the movie more meaning. But the longer I thought about it, the more I warmed to it. I felt a lot of meaning attached to the story, just not in an overt way. The plot happens and doesn't dictate or pander or explain itself. It was simple, but it compelled me; at times it was staggeringly bold. And characters, if at all underdeveloped, were probably done that way on purpose. It makes us work to understand them which I think is fitting.

There's room for personal translation.

When this movie ended, I sat for a while thinking, and eventually figured that I'd have to watch it again just to understand it well enough to review it. But I re and replayed it in my head as I remembered it and finally came to my above conclusions. Now I want to see it again to understand and appreciate it even more. Because, unlike the film's farmers whose wells have long run dry, the deeper you dig into this age-old tale woven neatly into a futuristic setting, the less dirt you will find.

Upcoming Movie Roundup - May

So I got a big surprise in April when I went to see Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice because I was curious and my brother wanted to see it, and it turned out to be not the most terrible movie ever. I didn't actually hate it but managed to mostly enjoy it and that quite impressed me. But predictably no April movies were able to tempt me to see them. I did think about how much I wanted to see 10 Cloverfield Lane again quite a lot. And I looked for Midnight Special, but it isn't playing in my theater. So now we have come upon it; it's May, and it's time for War. Civil War.

What releases are you looking forward to this month? And are you Team Cap or Team Iron Man?


Captain America: Civil War
May 6th; PG-13
Obviously Captain America is the most hype movie this month... and possibly even this year, but we'll see. I'm not super anxious and excited to see it at this moment because based on what I've heard over the past few months, it's going to be an intense and hard-hitting movie. I feel like it's going to take a lot, and hoping that it gives enough to balance it out. Also, having seen Batman v Superman and Daredevil season 2, I've already had enough of the heroes fighting. So I'm hoping this movie can handle it better, but I'm also pretty confident that it will. Cap is basically the best ever, so I'm excited to see him lead another movie, and hoping the supporting cast won't crowd him too much, but at the same time the supporting cast and all the new characters we'll get to see is a huge part of the appeal. (I have one hyphenated word for you: Spider-Man.) Opening night tickets are already in my possession. All that's left now is to find time for a Winter Soldier re-watch. Go Team Cap!




High-Rise
May 13th (limited); R
This one's rating means that I won't watch it until I can watch it cut, but everything else about it makes me excited for when ever that day will be. This looks like my kind of movie. It's a sci-fi, and looks like an original, cerebral, and dark one too. And that would be good enough for me, but it also has a cast I'm quite partial to, with Tom Hiddleston and Luke Evans, plus Jeremy Irons and Sienna Miller. It currently holds a medium high score on RT... and has my attention fully.




Last Days in the Desert
May 13th (limited); PG-13
I don't really have much to say about this one but I thought it was worth mentioning. I like Ewan McGregor a lot, and Tye Sheridan also has a role, and it's got some good reviews, but it also looks like the kind of movie that could go very weird and theologically wonky. So I'm more curious to see what other people think than I am so see it for myself.




Love & Friendship
May 13th (limited); PG
The new Jane Austen adaptation! A guaranteed success, right? Well, there is a tiny catch: the book, Lady Susan, isn't an average Austen novel. It was one of Austen's earliest works, short, and written in the form of letters. This probably poses a few adaptation challenges to get around, but at least since it's so short they probably won't have to cut much out! I've never read it, but from the trailer it looks like a bright, witty satirical and fun period drama, and it's current %100 on RT backs that up. So -- perhaps it is a guaranteed success!




The Curse of Sleeping Beauty
May 13th (limited); NR
This one caught my attention because I was just thinking the other day how neat it would be if someone did a Sleeping Beauty story with a twist, and that twist should be that she sleeps right into the modern day and is woken up there. This movie has that general idea, but also takes it to plenty more, stranger places... it looks like a bit of a horror flick. It doesn't really look like a very good movie either, like it may not be executed very well. But I thought it's existence was a fun coincidence, and I'd like to keep an eye on how it does.




X-Men: Apocalypse
May 27th; NR
I got tired of X-Men after the last film, but this one has still kindled a surprisingly strong interest in me. Maybe because of how many new characters are coming and looking very promising -- or rather, old characters coming back as kids and therefore being re-cast and revitalized. Maybe because of Oscar Isaac being Apocalypse. Or maybe because the title actually justifies the stakes and scope the movie has to have as an X-Men movie. All X-Men movies seem to deal with the end of the world, but this one deserves to. So maybe that why. Ha, who am I kidding -- it's definitely Oscar Isaac. And the other things as a secondary. I definitely want to see this one, but I don't know when I'll be able to -- it's coming out at an inconvenient time. So I'll see it when I can and until then try not to get my hopes up that it'll be any better than the last one. Equal will do.

Upcoming Movie Roundup - May

Avengers, assemble! Things went according to plan again, and April became the Avenger month for me. My theater does it's movie premieres the night before, so by the time this lovely month of May had rolled around I was already deep into the fangirling about how great Age of Ultron was. It was pretty darned fantastic, in fact, and if you expect to see a review of it popping up within the next few days you will not be disappointed. (You also won't be disappointed with the film itself.)

So now I can focus my May movie attention to all these other movies that Ultron had before overshadowed. Turns out, it's looking like a pretty fantastic month, with quite a few very interesting releases.

Have you seen Age of Ultron yet/when will you be seeing it? And what other May movies have your attention?

Here are the ones who have mine:

Far From the Madding Crowd
May 1st(limited); PG-13
The appeal of this one is that it's a period drama with Carey Mulligan. It's an adaptation of the novel by Thomas Hardy, (SPOILERS) and normally, that would make me very wary, since he typically has his stories end in tragedy, but I heard that this one doesn't, and that makes me very interested. (END)




Ride
May 1st(limited); R
This is a comedy about an uptight mother (Helen Hunt) who follows her oppressed son (Brenton Thwaites) to LA to nag him about going to college and instead gets her life changed. It doesn't really look like it'll be ground-breaking or anything -- I mean, the trailer practically gives away the whole movie -- but it does have a nice cast (Luke Wilson is also in it) and it looks funny enough, and rather sweet and if I ever watch it, that'll be all I expect from it.




Mad Max: Fury Road
May 15th; R
I've only seen parts of the Mel Gibson original Mad Max movies, so I don't really feel like I have any right be be super interested in this remake. And I'm not really. Certainly the cast of Tom Hardy, Charlize Theron, and Nicholas Hoult is interesting, and it all looks very stylishly crazy, and of course super-duper violent, and visually quite impressive. And orange. I'll be surprised if it turns out to be not as good as it promises to be, but it may be a while before I see for myself.




Tomorrowland
May 22nd; PG
Well -- it's an adventure flick, I can see that much. And sci-fi too. And George Clooney is in it, and that girl from The Longest Ride, Brittany Robertson. Brad Bird is directing, so that's a huge plus. But what's it about? I couldn't begin to explain. Every time I watch a new trailer it get weirder and more ambiguous about anything to do with plot. It's based on a Disney theme park "land" so maybe that explains the ambiguous-ness, or maybe they're just trying to be secretive about it. Either way, I'm intrigued.




Aloha
May 29th; PG-13
Simply put, this is a rom-com with Bradley Cooper and Emma Stone, so count me in. It has a few more pluses on a technical level; it's directed by Cameron Crowe, it co-stars Rachel McAdams, John Krasinski, Bill Murray and Alec Baldwin, and it's set in Hawaii. But honestly, my interest comes down to the the fact that this trailer just makes it look like a great romantic comedy with Bradley Cooper and Emma Stone. Yep, I'm basing my opinions off a trailer -- and I fully expect to be right.




San Andreas
May 29th; PG-13
I'll keep it short here: this movie is the new disaster movie that I will be laughing over with my brothers come whenever we can watch it for free.

Upcoming Movie Roundup - October

Last month I actually went and saw a movie I wanted to go and see! The Maze Runner -- and it lived up to it's potential impressively -- click here for my spoiler-free review of it. Now, October.

Look out -- here come ALL THE MOVIES. Not really, but really, there are a lot of new movie this month. Yikes. Which one do you want to see? Which ones have I left out? Which ones should I have not included because they're definitely going to be terrible? Leave a comment -- I need to know these things!


Left Behind
Oct. 3rd (limited); PG-13
I may be the only person in the entire homeschooling Christian community who never read these books. I was never much of a reader as a young person. But even if I had, I don't know if I would be any more interested in this. The RT synopsis makes it sound like just another end-of-the-world/disaster movie like 2012 or The Day After Tomorrow, but then the trailer looks more like one of those "Christian" movies that only Christians will see. Neither bode very well.




Dracula Untold
Oct. 10th; PG-13
Of course I will always want to watch any movie Luke Evans appears in, ever since he made my favorite character from The Hobbit book my favorite of The Hobbit movies as well. I would watch this the exact moment I see it come on TV in a couple years, based on the Luke Evans in a stylized action movie awesomeness, but then there's the vampire thing. There's always something, isn't there?




Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day
Oct. 10th; PG
This looks cheesy. And silly. And kiddie. And I don't care; I want to see it. Anytime a movie releases that isn't animated, and is rated PG, you have to sit up and pay attention -- this is a dying breed. I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't a great film, but I fully expect it too be fun, and diverting... and silly and cheesy.




Whiplash
Oct. 10th (limited); R
This month in "Obscure Movies I'm Interested in Because of That One Actor and Wouldn't Be Otherwise" Part 1: "Miles Teller." Okay, and also, this one's getting great reviews as an intense character piece for Teller and J.K. Simmons.




Kill the Messenger
Oct. 10th (limited); R
Jeremy Renner delivers a message, and then is killed, while doing some great acting. That's what I'm assuming happens in this movie. (It's a true story, so I could find out easily, but where's the fun in that?) Does that assumption make me want to see it any less? (Or any more?) Nope. And, honestly, this would be a lot more interesting to me if it were not based on true events...




The Book of Life
Oct. 17th; PG
*Sighhh* I'm sorry, but why am I supposed to be interested in this? I don't know, so I guess I'm not. Here's the trailer anyway. If you want to see this, please tell me why so I can try to understand.




The Best of Me
Oct. 17th; PG-13
The latest in a very long line of Nicholas Sparks adaptations trying to find the same amount of success as The Notebook. This one has more of my attention than usual by having James Marsden and Michelle Monaghan in the cast. Still, chances of the sap being unbearable even for the cast? I'd say 94%. Also, enjoy as they blatantly steal from The Fault in Our Stars at the beginning of this trailer. (For the record, I agree with Shakespeare.)




Rudderless
Oct. 17th (limited); R
"Obscure Movies I'm Interested in Because of That One Actor and Wouldn't Be Otherwise" Part 2: "Anton Yelchin." Really, though, this looks pretty great. Just ignore Selena Gomez's face there....




Young Ones
Oct. 17th (limited); R
"Obscure Movies I'm Interested in Because of That One Actor and Wouldn't Be Otherwise" Part 3: "Nicholas Hoult." And fine, there's Elle Fanning too. And Michael Shannon. And seriously, this sci-fi/western style is pretty intriguing!




St. Vincent
Oct. 24th (limited); PG-13
Last, but absolutely, in no way least. Mark my words people: This one. This movie will be the best of the month. Bill Murray is an old grump in an upbeat, pop indie. How could this possibly go wrong? At the very worst it'll just be a vehicle for Murray to crack a bunch of jokes which will undoubtedly be funny, because when is Bill Murray ever not funny? I rest my case. Watch this trailer:

X-Men: Days of Future Past

Mild spoilers within.

The X-Men attempt time travel. Trippy.

After the events of The Last Stand things have gone irrevocably bleak and holocaust-like. The last few surviving X-Men we know come up with a desperate final play, knowing that the events of the present hinged on one particular act in the past, they send someone back with a mission to prevent that act. And luckily for us, there's only one mutant who can survive such a journey, and therefore become the central character of the story -- Wolverine, of course.

He's the best. Even without his shiny metal claws.

And with Hugh Jackman at the center of your movie, especially as this classic character, you cannot go wrong. Never mind that un-killable thing, he's the only character sturdy enough to stay steady and unwavering as the complex plot shifts story lines around in a tangling mess hoping to emerge in the end with something pliable.

The focus is mainly centered on the young Professor X, going through a seriously uncharacteristically dark and difficult time as James McAvoy, and Magneto, Michael Fassbender, regular, normal, not-exactly-evil-but-definitely-misguided-and-rather-obtuse extremely complex and annoyingly likable Magneto. Also Mystique and Beast, characters who only became worthy of main-character attention once Jennifer Lawrence and Nicholas Hoult were cast as them. In fact, if I were to order these characters by importance and screen-time, Lawrence would be second only to Jackman. And with her skill, that's how it should be. Peter Dinklage also gets a turn as a typical, but memorable villain.

And they all turn in fantastic performances as we've come to expect of them.

The rest are more of side characters, even the greats Ian McKellen and Patrick Stewart, and while their storyline in the future does feel disjointed as you might expect, the characters and their powers are used creatively, make up good scenes and add to the suspense. That one mutant who knew how to think with portals made those scenes worth it singlehandedly.

The plot moved along at a quick and steady pace, and was involving and concise, if, at times a little too weighty and dramatic. It never went too far down that path to cause damage, but I certainly preferred the more fun, upbeat scenes. Like, for an example, every scene featuring Quicksilver. (Evan Peters) His character was brilliantly done, and played for comedy, and now I'm wondering how Age of Ultron could possibly top this with their version of the character. (I'm sure they'll surprise me too.) Anyway, the best of Quicksilver was unarguably the hilarious slow-motion bit where he casually saves the day in a fraction of a second. Unfortunately, he was too super-powered, and had to leave after that so there could be an actual plot for the rest of the film.

Four cool dudes.

And from there the rest of the film not being as balanced with comic relief veered over into seriousness, but didn't have sufficient content to ground it. It was still action-packed, sharp, clean, sensible, and filled with fine performances, but it seemed to all add up to nothing we haven't seen four or five times already, just with seriously cooler special effects -- and awesomer actors -- and those really wide 70's collars. Which, I suppose, makes it all worth seeing again doesn't it?

There was only one thing that really bothered me; lack of momentum in the characters. The character arcs were all more like circles because everyone got their due development, and it was all great, but at the end none show any actual progress. With the exception of Charles, who did have a marked change in character from beginning to end -- but not from end of First Class to the end here, which is the same difference.

"A person's a person, no matter how mutated, and we should all live in harmony." Yes -- we know. Are there no other themes worth exploring?

All these things make me believe that this film sole purpose was to be a connecting piece to combine the old and the new of the franchise into one, so they can continue from there on a new path. And that it does fantastically well, but the side effect is that it doesn't stand alone very well. As a piece of the franchise it's arguably the best yet, crafted well and with few flaws, and certainly succeeds in pulling the franchise out of a very deep hole. I honestly think it could have been more ambitious though, to band together and move forward into the future it creates simultaneously. It doesn't reach so high, but everything it does endeavor to do it succeeds in doing convincingly, and is well past a worthy installment for both sides of the franchise; as it sets the stage for a brand new future.

Upcoming Movie Roundup - May

Look out: here come the first round of the summer blockbusters!


The Amazing Spider-Man 2
May 2nd: PG-13
I admit: I'm a little worried about the villain count in this movie. Did no one learn anything from Maguire's Spider-Man 3? Well, hopefully they learned a lot, and the overwhelming amount of baddies is the only thing being repeated. This one has so much more potential anyway because I actually like Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone. Plus more bad guys and other characters means more cool actors to play them, like Jamie Foxx, who appears to be the main villain, and Paul Giamatti, and Dane DeHaan, who I've never watched before, but already love his version of Harry, and Felicity Jones, B.J. Novak, and Celeborn; Marton Csokas. Yep, by the reviews I've seen so far this doesn't live up to what we've come to expect from our superhero movies, but I doubt I'll have a hard time finding a few things to enjoy.




Godzilla
May 16th; PG-13
I feel like I've seen this before... Well, the monster looks impressive, but it doesn't look like there's a guarantee of anything more than that that the version with Matthew Broderick didn't give besides being newer and therefore cooler and more expensive. Or maybe I'm missing the appeal. The main appeal for me is that Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Elizabeth Olsen are starring -- it's kinda like a preview for Age of Ultron!




X-Men: Days of Future Past
May 23rd; PG-13
Well obviously this is a must-see. X-Men and the young X-Men "reboot" come together in a complicated, the-fate-of-the-earth-in-the-balance plot? Sounds a lot like Doctor Who meets superheroes, so count me in! Plus, with the best of the two casts added together, I don't think I've ever seen the likes of these huge names together before: Hugh Jackman, James McAvoy AND Patrick Stewart, and Michael Fassbender AND Ian McKellen. And then of course Jennifer Lawrence, Nicholas Hoult, and lots and lots of recognizable faces. And I did mention Jennifer Lawrence, right? Yeah. It would take a lot to makes this not be an awesome success.




Maleficent
May 30th; PG-13
Sleeping Beauty gets the "Wicked" treatment? The trailer implies that the baddie, played by Anelina Jolie, isn't so bad after all, which isn't exactly something I'm super interested to see. It looks epic and pretty (or awesome) and promises a deeper plot with conspiracies, and lots at steak. And they obviously had a great time updating the possibly-not-evil-after-all lady. But in too many ways I'm reminded of Snow White and the Hunstman. Will this be the new take on a classic fairytale that finally meets with success? The most drawing thing for me is the talented Elle Fanning as Aurora.



The summer movie season begins! So what is first on your to-see list?

Warm Bodies

What if you were undead? Inexplicably trapped in a body that no longer pumps blood. Doomed to shuffle around looking for food, and then feel guilty because you realize you eat humans. A zombie with a conscience.

Keep calm, don't be creepy, don't be creepy, and say something human.

That's R. He can't remember his name -- only that it starts with an "R" -- but he's a thoughtful corpse if ever there was one. He spends his days meandering through his airport home contemplating on how nice life must have been back before the epidemic when people actually communicated with each other, and making futile attempts to connect with his fellow undead. Sometimes he manages a word in amongst the grunts with his buddy M -- a word perhaps, like "hungry." Then they shamble away in search of brains...

Julie and her friends are survivors. They live in a safely walled off part of the city, but occasionally have to leave to collect supplies and such. They are at a hospital for that reason when R and his hungry comrades shuffle in. Cue grotesque human vs. undead battle -- no, cue cheesy romantic music and slow-mo close-up of love-struck zombie-face. Okay... cue both. R is, let's say, impressed with Julie's skills with a shotgun, but then he's distracted by some less-skilled guy shooting his shoulder. Instincts kick in and R regretfully dispatches the guy, biting his brain which causes his memories to flash though R's head -- the guy was Julie's boyfriend, and through his memories R feels a connection with Julie. He's smitten and determined to keep her safe. She makes him feel... alive.

Nora, Julie, and Perry, front and center. And other people, elsewhere.

I am not fan of zombie movies for one reason: their existence seems to be for the sole purpose of overwhelming and shocking audiences with relentless and glorified violence, gore, and horror. So you may imagine my surprise when I saw the trailer for Warm Bodies, having never heard a word about it before, and thought, "I want to see that." I didn't believe myself. Clearly, I have since been convinced and watched it, and what's more, I liked it.

It's a comedy and a romance, but is still a zombie movie too. And though it is toned down with a PG-13 rating instead of the usual zombie-R-rating, things get pretty complicated when your hero is a flesh-eating undead being. R eats Perry, and probably others before him, and there's no getting around it. It's disturbing. But here's where this zombie flick differs from others: instead of expecting you to mindlessly enjoy it, it admits that the violence is horrible. (Narrating, R even says he'd appreciate it if you'd turn away, and I complied) R is first conflicted, then ashamed and regretful of what he did as a corpse, and if that's not a satisfactory apology for the mayhem, it's at least an effort in the right direction.

In the supporting cast it's business as usual for John Malkovich as Julie's dad, and leader of the human rebellion. James Franco's younger brother Dave Franco plays Perry, and he gets more screen time, and lends more to the story than you'd think he would. Analeigh Tipton is Nora, a completely typical "best friend" for Julie. And Rob Corddry is M, who gets a bunch of jokes and a good amount of development for being a corpse and a side character. And if corpses let go of any remaining shreds of humanity, they turn into "bonies," evil, totally scary skeleton-like zombies, who are exactly the classic zombie-antagonists the film needs.

On a mission. Yes, this movie does actually have a plot.

The existence of a movie like Warm Bodies seems paradoxical. There are no two genres so completely opposite as rom-coms and zombies, yet somehow, incredibly, it works. How, I'm not entirely sure, but I can't ignore the facts: It's funny and charming, and the hero is a zombie (except they call them "corpses," instead.) And our corpse hero is interestingly the source of it all. Nicholas Hoult does a splendid job balancing the wit and the awkward sweetness with the super creepiness. You think you shouldn't like him (because he's a zombie!) but it's inevitable. Via a clever and thoughtful voice-over, we understand him, and the humanity he's managed to cling to, and we begin to root for him; to win the girl and save the human race... or to just get those words out -- he has a charmingly difficult time with speaking. 

Hoult's performance is the backbone and highlight of this film, but Teresa Palmer, who plays Julie surprised me by being very good as well. I expected a model type who is obviously way too invested in her appearance to worry about trivial things like acting, and that her character would be sappy and annoying. I was happily wrong; she is pretty, but in a realistic way, and is more typical of action heroines than romantic ones. Julie is wary at first (to put it mildly), but she and R slowly develop a light, sweet friendship. They're no Romeo and Juliet -- though their names awesomely allude to the couple, and there's a cute balcony scene -- but... oh, actually, that's my point; they're cute together, and it's fun to watch. 

Interesting fact: Palmer is Australian and Hoult is British. What is it about non-Americans who play Americans better than Americans can?

The contradicting results of these effortlessly blended genres left me in a daze. It was disturbing, then gleefully quirky. Shallowly romantic, then selflessly loving. Campy, then strangely thoughtful. A little scary, and surprisingly funny. Never forced or awkward, (except when it was supposed to be) and I'm uncertain of what to make of it. Here's one thing I do know: this movie made me think, and that in itself is good. I enjoyed it thoroughly, but not with abandon, and elements that were hard to swallow made me more appreciative of the hopeful, endearing themes of life and love. Warm Bodies is now my definition of a diamond in the rough, just like its inconceivable hero -- they are odd and unnatural, but under that cold grey skin, a warm heart beats. And in that case, Julie's view of R mirrors mine of the film; as the story progresses with lighthearted earnest, and our hero finds life again, we fall warily, absurdly, and happily in love.