Today my Twitter friend Rachel (@rachel_reviews) invited me onto her podcast to talk about the new Emma film (read my review here!) and how it compares with the four other versions that already exist! It was a fun conversation (talking Jane Austen, so how could it not be???) so if that sounds like a good listen to you, give it a listen below!
Showing posts with label Not a Review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Not a Review. Show all posts
Monday, March 9, 2020
Sunday, January 12, 2020
1917: Combating the Enemy of Art
Spoilers for 1917 within.
Don't worry film fans, 1917 doesn't attempt to rewrite filmmaking. Filmmakers aren't going to collectively abandon the film language known as editing now because of what Sam Mendes achieved without it. 1917 abides by the rule of art in a classical, and appropriately old-fashioned way; challenging itself to experiment beyond what's been done before, but always pursuing one goal: to be good art.
The challenge of art comes from limitation. Sometimes set by budget or studio constraints; sometimes like with 1917, set by the artist himself. Mendes set a LOT of limitations: a real-time story, one continuous shot, must always move forward, no exposition, and who knows what else. Then the art comes by working around those limitations -- those self-imposed rules -- to do exactly the same thing that every film should: to tell a story in a way that is entertaining and meaningful to an audience. Many movies can't do that, even with no limitations.
So, if you MUST keep your camera constantly in the story, but also need the story to appear on camera in a way that conveys decipherable and meaningful character, arcs, and plot progression -- in a way that measures up to your standard -- then you must, through your artistic creativity, devise a way. If you story requires, for example, to show a character interact with item that is significant, and in the next moment show the expression of another character's face, and without that item and that expression the story would be incomplete, then you must work through the limitations barring the way; you must arrive at, and then implement, a solution.
If the solution works, and it conveys the desired aspect, but doesn't convey it as broadly or extensively as could have been done without the limitation that made it a challenge in the first place, does that mean that the work is a failure? No. That is precisely what makes it art.
If I decided to draw a sunflower and set the limitation that it must be on white paper and only use the medium of black ink to make it, no one would criticize me for not making the sunflower yellow. So it is with 1917. No exposition was allowed as part of the limitation, and it took place in only 2 hours of time. To say it's lacking because the characters are slight and we don't know much about their history is to completely ignore the whole premise of the work. My sunflower should be judged on the elements of the sunflower that I CAN include -- the shape and details of it and whether you see a sunflower when you look at it. So why are so many people determined to judge 1917 as if it were a film with cuts and plenty of space and time within the plot for explaining every facet of the characters to the audience?
Unfortunately, it comes from a popular state of mind in the film industry and what they try to make audiences believe makes a good movie. Many don't buy into it and that gives me hope, but I recall a baffling tweet from Rotten Tomatoes that popped up just before the "live action" remake of The Lion King hit theaters. They showed the simplistic cartoon animation of the original side by side with the photo-realistic CGI animation, and captioned it along the lines of: "Look how far animation has come." Anyone with half a brain can see the faulty logic there. Just because it looks more like real life doesn't mean it's in any way an improvement.
The idea behind that erroneous tweet is that the more photo-realistic work is the most impressive. The better. This stems from a broader idea in blockbuster filmmaking; that More is More. The more a film can show you, the better it is. Does Robert Downey Jr.'s character Tony Stark have a backstory that influences his actions in a story, but it happened to him when he was young? Normally, that would be a natural limitation that would require a creative get-around. But with digital de-aging technology, Captain America: Civil War had no such limitation to deal with. In Rise of Skywalker, the same technology allowed a scene between young Luke and Leia to be shown. Was that movie better for it?
Most egregiously you can see this mindset come from films like Avengers: Endgame, where nothing is impossible because technology and money removed all limitations from the film's path. We are told that Endgame is the pinnacle of filmmaking because it's the biggest, least limited, most everything-and-the-kitchen-sink film ever made. And the scattered clamors for it to win Oscars for its unimpeded efforts indicate that the idea is taking hold.
Sam Mendes rejects the idea of More is More in his film 1917. Technology has removed so much natural limitation, that instead he had to choose to be limited, thus creating a need for his creative skills. He sets an incredible amount of limitations on himself, to the point where the audience is baffled to understand how he thought it was at all a surmountable task. He is clearly an artist who loves a challenge. Everything he does in this film is to tell his story as effectively as possible in his chosen medium -- or limitations -- of one continuous shot and real time with no exposition sneaking in. He made it hard on himself. The result is that we cannot see anything removed from the two characters of Blake and Schofield. The plot cannot be revealed except within their sight, so the plot must be simple. And we cannot be told complex backstories, so the foundations of their characters must be simple.
But is the simple idea that Blake wants to complete the task given to him because he loves his brother -- his family -- not compelling because it's simple? Is the contrasting but equally simple idea that Schofield is reluctant to go because he loves his family too carry no meaning? And then when he has no choice but to continue on -- to honor his comrade's wishes despite his fear for himself -- what about that is lacking in character depth or motivation? Do we need to know who waits for him at home to see his longing to be with them? Do we only care if he lives or dies because we want the film to have a happy ending, or do we connect with his will to survive on a fundamental, simple, human level?
In essence, do 1917's limitations make it lesser, or do they merely make it simpler? I argue the latter. That the plot is simple doesn't remove any of the embedded urgency or importance. In fact, the immersive filming style does nothing but enhance the tension and sense of passing time. And the characters are slight -- or at least shown slightly -- but they are potent; far from empty, and undeniably genuine.
Because of the limitation of time and camera, a great deal of creative get-around is applied to express and develop character through details. Remember how, after escaping the bunker where Blake saves his life, Schofield takes a tin out of his breast pocket and shakily opens it to peek inside? In a More is More movie, he could have easily started bawling and telling Blake about his mother, wife, and daughter, and how he misses them and wants to go home to them. But besides it not making sense for either the situation or the character, that would have been lazy storytelling.
The movie not only conveys Schofield's wants and fears to us wordlessly, it does it in a way that is more creatively engaging than is possible by merely saying it outright. The instant we see how much he values the contents of that tin, we want to know what's in it, and then pay attention to learn more. If he had told it all in a quick expository explanation, it would have lost its meaning and the end of the film would have felt shallow. Instead it was poetic. And all because of the film's extreme limitations.
So, I come to these conclusions:
Limitation does breed creativity. Working around limitations in creative ways can bring simplicity, but simplicity in itself isn't a bad thing; if done right, the impact remains. And it's the impact of the information, not the amount of information that is valuable.
More is not more. When it comes to art, less truly is more.
Artists who constrain the medium of their work, challenge themselves, and hold themselves to ostensibly unachievable standards are the only hope for the continued artistry of filmmaking.
And 1917 is a gorgeous work of art. Thanks for reading.
The absence of limitations is the enemy of art." ~ Orson Welles
Don't worry film fans, 1917 doesn't attempt to rewrite filmmaking. Filmmakers aren't going to collectively abandon the film language known as editing now because of what Sam Mendes achieved without it. 1917 abides by the rule of art in a classical, and appropriately old-fashioned way; challenging itself to experiment beyond what's been done before, but always pursuing one goal: to be good art.
The challenge of art comes from limitation. Sometimes set by budget or studio constraints; sometimes like with 1917, set by the artist himself. Mendes set a LOT of limitations: a real-time story, one continuous shot, must always move forward, no exposition, and who knows what else. Then the art comes by working around those limitations -- those self-imposed rules -- to do exactly the same thing that every film should: to tell a story in a way that is entertaining and meaningful to an audience. Many movies can't do that, even with no limitations.
That limitation breeds creativity used to be common knowledge; now it seems more forgotten by the moment.
So, if you MUST keep your camera constantly in the story, but also need the story to appear on camera in a way that conveys decipherable and meaningful character, arcs, and plot progression -- in a way that measures up to your standard -- then you must, through your artistic creativity, devise a way. If you story requires, for example, to show a character interact with item that is significant, and in the next moment show the expression of another character's face, and without that item and that expression the story would be incomplete, then you must work through the limitations barring the way; you must arrive at, and then implement, a solution.
If the solution works, and it conveys the desired aspect, but doesn't convey it as broadly or extensively as could have been done without the limitation that made it a challenge in the first place, does that mean that the work is a failure? No. That is precisely what makes it art.
If I decided to draw a sunflower and set the limitation that it must be on white paper and only use the medium of black ink to make it, no one would criticize me for not making the sunflower yellow. So it is with 1917. No exposition was allowed as part of the limitation, and it took place in only 2 hours of time. To say it's lacking because the characters are slight and we don't know much about their history is to completely ignore the whole premise of the work. My sunflower should be judged on the elements of the sunflower that I CAN include -- the shape and details of it and whether you see a sunflower when you look at it. So why are so many people determined to judge 1917 as if it were a film with cuts and plenty of space and time within the plot for explaining every facet of the characters to the audience?
Unfortunately, it comes from a popular state of mind in the film industry and what they try to make audiences believe makes a good movie. Many don't buy into it and that gives me hope, but I recall a baffling tweet from Rotten Tomatoes that popped up just before the "live action" remake of The Lion King hit theaters. They showed the simplistic cartoon animation of the original side by side with the photo-realistic CGI animation, and captioned it along the lines of: "Look how far animation has come." Anyone with half a brain can see the faulty logic there. Just because it looks more like real life doesn't mean it's in any way an improvement.
Look how much animation has evolved in the last 25 years, the original version of #TheLionKing released on this day in 1994. pic.twitter.com/LdQU4VTXGj— Rotten Tomatoes (@RottenTomatoes) June 24, 2019
The idea behind that erroneous tweet is that the more photo-realistic work is the most impressive. The better. This stems from a broader idea in blockbuster filmmaking; that More is More. The more a film can show you, the better it is. Does Robert Downey Jr.'s character Tony Stark have a backstory that influences his actions in a story, but it happened to him when he was young? Normally, that would be a natural limitation that would require a creative get-around. But with digital de-aging technology, Captain America: Civil War had no such limitation to deal with. In Rise of Skywalker, the same technology allowed a scene between young Luke and Leia to be shown. Was that movie better for it?
Most egregiously you can see this mindset come from films like Avengers: Endgame, where nothing is impossible because technology and money removed all limitations from the film's path. We are told that Endgame is the pinnacle of filmmaking because it's the biggest, least limited, most everything-and-the-kitchen-sink film ever made. And the scattered clamors for it to win Oscars for its unimpeded efforts indicate that the idea is taking hold.Sam Mendes rejects the idea of More is More in his film 1917. Technology has removed so much natural limitation, that instead he had to choose to be limited, thus creating a need for his creative skills. He sets an incredible amount of limitations on himself, to the point where the audience is baffled to understand how he thought it was at all a surmountable task. He is clearly an artist who loves a challenge. Everything he does in this film is to tell his story as effectively as possible in his chosen medium -- or limitations -- of one continuous shot and real time with no exposition sneaking in. He made it hard on himself. The result is that we cannot see anything removed from the two characters of Blake and Schofield. The plot cannot be revealed except within their sight, so the plot must be simple. And we cannot be told complex backstories, so the foundations of their characters must be simple.
But is the simple idea that Blake wants to complete the task given to him because he loves his brother -- his family -- not compelling because it's simple? Is the contrasting but equally simple idea that Schofield is reluctant to go because he loves his family too carry no meaning? And then when he has no choice but to continue on -- to honor his comrade's wishes despite his fear for himself -- what about that is lacking in character depth or motivation? Do we need to know who waits for him at home to see his longing to be with them? Do we only care if he lives or dies because we want the film to have a happy ending, or do we connect with his will to survive on a fundamental, simple, human level?
Simple does not equal bad or lacking unless you buy into the idea that More is More.
In essence, do 1917's limitations make it lesser, or do they merely make it simpler? I argue the latter. That the plot is simple doesn't remove any of the embedded urgency or importance. In fact, the immersive filming style does nothing but enhance the tension and sense of passing time. And the characters are slight -- or at least shown slightly -- but they are potent; far from empty, and undeniably genuine.
Because of the limitation of time and camera, a great deal of creative get-around is applied to express and develop character through details. Remember how, after escaping the bunker where Blake saves his life, Schofield takes a tin out of his breast pocket and shakily opens it to peek inside? In a More is More movie, he could have easily started bawling and telling Blake about his mother, wife, and daughter, and how he misses them and wants to go home to them. But besides it not making sense for either the situation or the character, that would have been lazy storytelling.
The movie not only conveys Schofield's wants and fears to us wordlessly, it does it in a way that is more creatively engaging than is possible by merely saying it outright. The instant we see how much he values the contents of that tin, we want to know what's in it, and then pay attention to learn more. If he had told it all in a quick expository explanation, it would have lost its meaning and the end of the film would have felt shallow. Instead it was poetic. And all because of the film's extreme limitations.
So, I come to these conclusions:
Limitation does breed creativity. Working around limitations in creative ways can bring simplicity, but simplicity in itself isn't a bad thing; if done right, the impact remains. And it's the impact of the information, not the amount of information that is valuable.
More is not more. When it comes to art, less truly is more.
Artists who constrain the medium of their work, challenge themselves, and hold themselves to ostensibly unachievable standards are the only hope for the continued artistry of filmmaking.
And 1917 is a gorgeous work of art. Thanks for reading.
Tuesday, April 16, 2019
I Wrote a Novel! (Read the 1st Chapter)
Yes, I did. It feels weird to brag on myself, but I guess I'm going for it -- because I'm a little proud for actually doing it this time. I've always loved the idea of novel-writing and have always had some kind of story rattling around in my brain. (The reason I have this blog in the first place is because of how much I love stories!) I've tried many times to put the ideas to paper (or computer screen) and in every single instance I don't think I've gotten past the first chapter.
And that's why I kept this one on the down-low. I didn't even mention it to my family until I had finished the first draft! I kept wondering, what if it fizzles out. But I recently finished the third draft and now, whether I ever get it published or not, it feels complete to me and like I've finally accomplished a long-pursued goal.
Honestly, all credit to God because I don't even know how exactly I did it. It's strange to think it came out of my head...
I started it in July of 2017. I remember that easily because after seeing Spider-Man Homecoming, there was a detail in Tom Holland's Peter Parker that inspired my main character to become real to me. A premise and a shadow of the character had been there for a while, and all at once it clicked; I had a beginning, an end, and a character. I started writing, worried it would fizzle out like all the others, but I used Andy Weir's (The Martian) advice and drove the plot (and my own interest) by pushing the character into hard situations and trying to get him out. Somehow in that manner I made it to the end, looked back, and saw a clear three-act structure, characters I cared about, and scenes that I enjoyed reading.
It took about a month to finish the first draft at 35,000 words. The second draft was 45,000 words and had less plot holes; and this third is 64,000 words with some intentional pacing and a re-worked third act.
Unfortunately, in all that time, I never thought of the perfect title. But I take it as a good sign because all my unfinished projects had hard-and-fast titles and little else.
The story was inspired by film re-imaginings of fairytales I'd seen. Leave it to me to be inspired by things I didn't like! I did, however, like the idea of them, and kept thinking about ways to re-imagine them that would be interesting. To me at least -- I won't presume my take will be interesting to everyone, either. I just wanted to make a fairytale re-imagining that I personally would want to see. There are some distinct Sleeping Beauty elements present, but the more I wrote the more I separated from the classic tales in actual content. The central idea was that I didn't want the "sleeping beauty" to be the main character.
The result is a low-fantasy thriller set in 1920's America. Destin Reinhardt, on the verge of turning eighteen and inheriting a vast fortune, must get through a brief stay at the decrepit Briar Mansion; a boarding school for orphans. With the tempting legend that surrounds the place, and his own worrying spirit, he plows into a danger from which escape means either he, or it, must come to an absolute end.
And with that, I'd like to invite you to read the first chapter! I feel very much inside my own head here, and would love some outside perspective. If you'd like to read just for enjoyment or curiosity you're more than welcome, but if you'd be so wonderful as to take the time to share any and all thoughts you have on it, I'd be eternally grateful! Compliments and constructive criticism are equally welcome -- but mostly I would simply like to know if you'd be interested in reading more.
Thanks so much for your indulgence and time in reading even this! Click here, or on the home bar tab marked "Chapter One of My Novel" to read!
And that's why I kept this one on the down-low. I didn't even mention it to my family until I had finished the first draft! I kept wondering, what if it fizzles out. But I recently finished the third draft and now, whether I ever get it published or not, it feels complete to me and like I've finally accomplished a long-pursued goal.
Honestly, all credit to God because I don't even know how exactly I did it. It's strange to think it came out of my head...
I started it in July of 2017. I remember that easily because after seeing Spider-Man Homecoming, there was a detail in Tom Holland's Peter Parker that inspired my main character to become real to me. A premise and a shadow of the character had been there for a while, and all at once it clicked; I had a beginning, an end, and a character. I started writing, worried it would fizzle out like all the others, but I used Andy Weir's (The Martian) advice and drove the plot (and my own interest) by pushing the character into hard situations and trying to get him out. Somehow in that manner I made it to the end, looked back, and saw a clear three-act structure, characters I cared about, and scenes that I enjoyed reading.
It took about a month to finish the first draft at 35,000 words. The second draft was 45,000 words and had less plot holes; and this third is 64,000 words with some intentional pacing and a re-worked third act.
Unfortunately, in all that time, I never thought of the perfect title. But I take it as a good sign because all my unfinished projects had hard-and-fast titles and little else.
The story was inspired by film re-imaginings of fairytales I'd seen. Leave it to me to be inspired by things I didn't like! I did, however, like the idea of them, and kept thinking about ways to re-imagine them that would be interesting. To me at least -- I won't presume my take will be interesting to everyone, either. I just wanted to make a fairytale re-imagining that I personally would want to see. There are some distinct Sleeping Beauty elements present, but the more I wrote the more I separated from the classic tales in actual content. The central idea was that I didn't want the "sleeping beauty" to be the main character.
The result is a low-fantasy thriller set in 1920's America. Destin Reinhardt, on the verge of turning eighteen and inheriting a vast fortune, must get through a brief stay at the decrepit Briar Mansion; a boarding school for orphans. With the tempting legend that surrounds the place, and his own worrying spirit, he plows into a danger from which escape means either he, or it, must come to an absolute end.
And with that, I'd like to invite you to read the first chapter! I feel very much inside my own head here, and would love some outside perspective. If you'd like to read just for enjoyment or curiosity you're more than welcome, but if you'd be so wonderful as to take the time to share any and all thoughts you have on it, I'd be eternally grateful! Compliments and constructive criticism are equally welcome -- but mostly I would simply like to know if you'd be interested in reading more.
Thanks so much for your indulgence and time in reading even this! Click here, or on the home bar tab marked "Chapter One of My Novel" to read!
Sunday, January 29, 2017
2016 Films I Saw
My number of 2016-movies seen in 2016 hits the same as last year -- 20. (Since I technically saw the last two on the list
in 2017.) I only went to the theater 10 times this year though, compared
to a whopping 17 times from 2015. Only seeing one movie twice helped a
lot with that, but there also simply weren't many big releases that
interested me enough, and to make up for it I wound up watching a whole
bunch of (mainly) sub-par films at home. That resulted in my average rating of
the year to be a 3.2 -- compared to 3.6 of 2015.
Still, right now I'm not feeling let down; 2016 gave me four 5-star movies, plus Star Wars which I adore in spite of not being able to swing giving it a perfect score. (And don't forget the TV series Stranger Things which may have been the highlight of the entire year!) I have two regrets: Arrival and Hunt for the Wilderpeople. I'm sure I'll see them soon enough. I did wait to post this until I'd seen La La Land though, because I got the feeling that I would want it to be included, and I think I made the right choice; it was a perfect close for the year.
So here's the 22 I've seen to date, with brief summaries of thoughts and star-ratings. Click the links to read my full reviews! And drop by the comments section to leave your thoughts on the films of 2016! Were you satisfied with the movie year, or no?
Key:
* = the ones I went to the theater to see.
** = watched it using Vidangel. I really enjoyed using that service this year, even to watch films that didn't need anything edited out!
10 Cloverfield Lane* - My first of the year, and my favorite of the year! This is not the sort of movie that needs dozens of viewings, but it was immaculate and powerful and stunning, and I love it. 5 stars!
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice* - I had no plans to see it in theaters but went with a group of friends. I'm glad I saw it on the big screen, because its visual feast distracted nicely from its narrative stupidity. 3 stars.
Captain America: Civil War*- My love/hate relationship with this film is still going strong. On one hand, Bucky and Steve and Spider-Man and those action sequences! On the other, irritating political plot lines and "because you gotta" reasoning. 4 Stars.
Deadpool** - Stripped bear to its basic plot by my liberal application of Vidangel, this one wasn't able to shock me into believing it was actually original. A perverted shadow of the wacky comic character. 1.5 Stars.
The Boy** - As far as cheap horror films go, not complete waste of time. Rupert Evans's face and the ridiculous twist ending made things memorable. 2 stars.
Midnight Special - A special film indeed. A sci-fi genre film that I wish more sci-fi genre films would aspire to be like. Beautiful, heartfelt, imaginative, and excellently acted. 5 stars.
Star Trek Beyond* - A cheaper but fun space caper for the crew of the Enterprise. Decent attention to character. I wouldn't mind them continuing this way, but the franchise won't be the same without Chekov. 4 stars. Second viewing brought it down a bit.
Hail, Caesar!** - A very unusual movie, entertaining in unique and unexpected ways. Not the best from the Coens, not a waste of time either. 3.5 stars, settled to a 3 by now.
Warcraft** - Even worse than I thought possible. I was bored and too confused to bother trying to review it. My brothers understood it well enough though. They didn't like it either. 1.5 stars.
The Magnificent Seven* - Modern blockbuster meets classic cowboy flick. There's really nothing special about this one, but it was a fun ride. 3.5 stars.
X-Men: Apocalypse** - Not at all apocalyptic. But the younger versions of characters were well cast. But Oscar Isaac was completely wasted. But it's decent if you're a fan. 3 stars.
ARQ - A Netflix original that takes the Groundhog Day gimmick and runs around with it in an enclosed sci-fi setting. Small, but worthy. 3 stars.
The Curse of Sleeping Beauty - A low-budget creeper that utilizes smart technique to be an effective supernatural thriller... until the ending messed everything up. 2.5 stars.
Retreat - Fran Kanz joins a cult on Netflix. Weird, creepy, and not exactly rewarding in the end. 2 stars.
Doctor Strange* - An extremely satisfying step outside the box for Marvel. Entertaining, smart, compelling, and appropriately psychedelic. 5 stars! ...but I still haven't seen it twice.
Love & Friendship - Jane Austen's unfinished story get the lazy treatment. The words are sharp; everything else is dull and dry and uninspired. 2.5 stars.
Independence Day: Resurgence** - Pathetic and utterly useless. I'm only glad I didn't pay ticket prices for it. 2 stars. (Because I did enjoy making fun of it.)
Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them* - A surprisingly enjoyable spinoff adventure. I already like this series more than Harry Potter, although it's not entirely without flaws. 3.5 stars.
Jason Bourne** - It's not terrible, but it is bad enough that I regret seeing it for the previous ending it ruined. No real reason for it to exist. 2.5 stars.
Rogue One: A Star Wars Story* - The only movie I saw twice in theaters. Beautiful story, lovable characters, fun and moving. It's not quite perfect, but it lives up to its potential better than seems possible. 4.5 stars!
Zootopia - I didn't expect I'd love it, but I was surprised at how little I enjoyed it. On the surface it looked cute and good enough for a kid's movie, but I may or may not have just offended it by calling it "cute." 2.5 stars.
La La Land - I'm so glad I waited for this one. Superbly moving and wonderfully enjoyable, deeply thoughtful, gorgeous, creative, and everything it should be. 5 stars!
Still, right now I'm not feeling let down; 2016 gave me four 5-star movies, plus Star Wars which I adore in spite of not being able to swing giving it a perfect score. (And don't forget the TV series Stranger Things which may have been the highlight of the entire year!) I have two regrets: Arrival and Hunt for the Wilderpeople. I'm sure I'll see them soon enough. I did wait to post this until I'd seen La La Land though, because I got the feeling that I would want it to be included, and I think I made the right choice; it was a perfect close for the year.
So here's the 22 I've seen to date, with brief summaries of thoughts and star-ratings. Click the links to read my full reviews! And drop by the comments section to leave your thoughts on the films of 2016! Were you satisfied with the movie year, or no?
Key:
* = the ones I went to the theater to see.
** = watched it using Vidangel. I really enjoyed using that service this year, even to watch films that didn't need anything edited out!
10 Cloverfield Lane* - My first of the year, and my favorite of the year! This is not the sort of movie that needs dozens of viewings, but it was immaculate and powerful and stunning, and I love it. 5 stars!
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice* - I had no plans to see it in theaters but went with a group of friends. I'm glad I saw it on the big screen, because its visual feast distracted nicely from its narrative stupidity. 3 stars.
Captain America: Civil War*- My love/hate relationship with this film is still going strong. On one hand, Bucky and Steve and Spider-Man and those action sequences! On the other, irritating political plot lines and "because you gotta" reasoning. 4 Stars.
Deadpool** - Stripped bear to its basic plot by my liberal application of Vidangel, this one wasn't able to shock me into believing it was actually original. A perverted shadow of the wacky comic character. 1.5 Stars.
The Boy** - As far as cheap horror films go, not complete waste of time. Rupert Evans's face and the ridiculous twist ending made things memorable. 2 stars.
Midnight Special - A special film indeed. A sci-fi genre film that I wish more sci-fi genre films would aspire to be like. Beautiful, heartfelt, imaginative, and excellently acted. 5 stars.
Star Trek Beyond* - A cheaper but fun space caper for the crew of the Enterprise. Decent attention to character. I wouldn't mind them continuing this way, but the franchise won't be the same without Chekov. 4 stars. Second viewing brought it down a bit.
Hail, Caesar!** - A very unusual movie, entertaining in unique and unexpected ways. Not the best from the Coens, not a waste of time either. 3.5 stars, settled to a 3 by now.
Warcraft** - Even worse than I thought possible. I was bored and too confused to bother trying to review it. My brothers understood it well enough though. They didn't like it either. 1.5 stars.
The Magnificent Seven* - Modern blockbuster meets classic cowboy flick. There's really nothing special about this one, but it was a fun ride. 3.5 stars.
X-Men: Apocalypse** - Not at all apocalyptic. But the younger versions of characters were well cast. But Oscar Isaac was completely wasted. But it's decent if you're a fan. 3 stars.
ARQ - A Netflix original that takes the Groundhog Day gimmick and runs around with it in an enclosed sci-fi setting. Small, but worthy. 3 stars.
The Curse of Sleeping Beauty - A low-budget creeper that utilizes smart technique to be an effective supernatural thriller... until the ending messed everything up. 2.5 stars.
Retreat - Fran Kanz joins a cult on Netflix. Weird, creepy, and not exactly rewarding in the end. 2 stars.
Doctor Strange* - An extremely satisfying step outside the box for Marvel. Entertaining, smart, compelling, and appropriately psychedelic. 5 stars! ...but I still haven't seen it twice.
Love & Friendship - Jane Austen's unfinished story get the lazy treatment. The words are sharp; everything else is dull and dry and uninspired. 2.5 stars.
Independence Day: Resurgence** - Pathetic and utterly useless. I'm only glad I didn't pay ticket prices for it. 2 stars. (Because I did enjoy making fun of it.)
Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them* - A surprisingly enjoyable spinoff adventure. I already like this series more than Harry Potter, although it's not entirely without flaws. 3.5 stars.
Jason Bourne** - It's not terrible, but it is bad enough that I regret seeing it for the previous ending it ruined. No real reason for it to exist. 2.5 stars.
Rogue One: A Star Wars Story* - The only movie I saw twice in theaters. Beautiful story, lovable characters, fun and moving. It's not quite perfect, but it lives up to its potential better than seems possible. 4.5 stars!
Zootopia - I didn't expect I'd love it, but I was surprised at how little I enjoyed it. On the surface it looked cute and good enough for a kid's movie, but I may or may not have just offended it by calling it "cute." 2.5 stars.
La La Land - I'm so glad I waited for this one. Superbly moving and wonderfully enjoyable, deeply thoughtful, gorgeous, creative, and everything it should be. 5 stars!
Tuesday, January 12, 2016
2015 movies I've seen!
Mostly for my own information, I collected together all the movies I've seen that were released in 2015. There were 20, which was more than I expected. I missed a few like The Man from UNCLE and Brooklyn that I still need to see, but not bad, considering how great and packed a year for movies it was! I thought I'd share the list with you guys, so here they all are in order of release, with some brief thoughts and the star-rating I gave them.
* = saw it twice in theaters.
** = saw it at home, not in the theater.
No link = I never reviewed that one.
**Jupiter Ascending -- How much of a movie do you have to see for it to count? For this one I missed a bit near the beginning and slept through the climactic battle... but I know it was terrible! 2 stars.
Old Fashioned -- Wouldn't care to ever watch it again, but I enjoyed it the one time, and appreciated what they were trying to do. 3 stars.
Cinderella* -- First love of the year. Adored this one from top to bottom! 4.5 stars. Could have maybe been a 5.
Insurgent -- I knew it wasn't great when I saw it but since then, the number of times I forgot about it tells me that it deserves less than the 3.5 stars it got from me.
**While We're Young -- Almost started to review this one. I thoroughly enjoyed it, particularly, in retrospect, Adam Driver's character. 3 stars.
**The Age of Adaline -- Liked some of it, scoffed at some of it. Typical reaction to romantic dramas. 3 stars.
Avengers: Age of Ultron -- Gave it 5 stars because it was exactly the same as The Avengers. Upon the second viewing I realized I just didn't like it that much. 4.5 would be a fair adjustment.
Far From the Madding Crowd -- Memorable period drama with excellent characters. Inspired me to read the book! 4 stars.
**Ride -- Typical indie comedy made memorable by surfing, Luke Wilson, and Helen Hunt's clingy, stuck-up mom character. Good, but not great. 3 stars.
**Aloha -- I tried to like this one, but only wound up caring about John Krasinski's silent character, and he wasn't in it all that much. 2.5 stars.
Jurassic World -- Chris Pratt rules; beats up dinosaurs. 4 stars. 5 star enjoyment!
**Inside Out -- The one where I'm not mainstream and didn't absolutely adore this movie. The middle section bored me, and I didn't appreciate having my emotions toyed with. 3.5 stars.
Ant-Man -- Second love of the year! Awesome small-scale superhero flick that reminded me why I love superhero flicks in the first place. 4.5 stars.
Paper Towns -- Not a terrible movie, but a huge disappointment after that stunning novel. 2.5 stars.
Mission: Impossible Rogue Nation* -- Third love! Couldn't get enough of the loveable characters and the amazing, thrilling action! 5 stars!
**Before We Go -- Chris Evans and Alice Eve make this one a memorable small-scale charmer. 3.5 stars.
Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials -- Keeps the series going strong and in a unique direction. Dystopia. Mind games. Non-stop pace. Freaky zombies. 4 stars.
The Martian* -- Fourth love. It gleaned some of my love for the novel, but is a beautiful, moving, groovy, and faithful adaptation. 5 stars!
The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2 -- Makes a semi-valiant effort to redeem Part 1. Ugh, I'm just glad it's over at this point. 3.5 stars.
Star Wars: The Force Awakens* -- Fifth, and final love. I felt like I did as a kid falling in love with the original trilogy. Totally and completely blown away. 5 stars!
For 2016 I should make it a goal to review all the 2016-released movie I see. Out of the 7 new movies I saw at home, I only actually reviewed 3 of them. Must do better!
How did your movie stats for 2015 work out? Excited for the 2016 movie year?
* = saw it twice in theaters.
** = saw it at home, not in the theater.
No link = I never reviewed that one.
**Jupiter Ascending -- How much of a movie do you have to see for it to count? For this one I missed a bit near the beginning and slept through the climactic battle... but I know it was terrible! 2 stars.
Old Fashioned -- Wouldn't care to ever watch it again, but I enjoyed it the one time, and appreciated what they were trying to do. 3 stars.
Cinderella* -- First love of the year. Adored this one from top to bottom! 4.5 stars. Could have maybe been a 5.
Insurgent -- I knew it wasn't great when I saw it but since then, the number of times I forgot about it tells me that it deserves less than the 3.5 stars it got from me.
**While We're Young -- Almost started to review this one. I thoroughly enjoyed it, particularly, in retrospect, Adam Driver's character. 3 stars.
**The Age of Adaline -- Liked some of it, scoffed at some of it. Typical reaction to romantic dramas. 3 stars.
Avengers: Age of Ultron -- Gave it 5 stars because it was exactly the same as The Avengers. Upon the second viewing I realized I just didn't like it that much. 4.5 would be a fair adjustment.
Far From the Madding Crowd -- Memorable period drama with excellent characters. Inspired me to read the book! 4 stars.
**Ride -- Typical indie comedy made memorable by surfing, Luke Wilson, and Helen Hunt's clingy, stuck-up mom character. Good, but not great. 3 stars.
**Aloha -- I tried to like this one, but only wound up caring about John Krasinski's silent character, and he wasn't in it all that much. 2.5 stars.
Jurassic World -- Chris Pratt rules; beats up dinosaurs. 4 stars. 5 star enjoyment!
**Inside Out -- The one where I'm not mainstream and didn't absolutely adore this movie. The middle section bored me, and I didn't appreciate having my emotions toyed with. 3.5 stars.
Ant-Man -- Second love of the year! Awesome small-scale superhero flick that reminded me why I love superhero flicks in the first place. 4.5 stars.
Paper Towns -- Not a terrible movie, but a huge disappointment after that stunning novel. 2.5 stars.
Mission: Impossible Rogue Nation* -- Third love! Couldn't get enough of the loveable characters and the amazing, thrilling action! 5 stars!
**Before We Go -- Chris Evans and Alice Eve make this one a memorable small-scale charmer. 3.5 stars.
Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials -- Keeps the series going strong and in a unique direction. Dystopia. Mind games. Non-stop pace. Freaky zombies. 4 stars.
The Martian* -- Fourth love. It gleaned some of my love for the novel, but is a beautiful, moving, groovy, and faithful adaptation. 5 stars!
The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2 -- Makes a semi-valiant effort to redeem Part 1. Ugh, I'm just glad it's over at this point. 3.5 stars.
Star Wars: The Force Awakens* -- Fifth, and final love. I felt like I did as a kid falling in love with the original trilogy. Totally and completely blown away. 5 stars!
For 2016 I should make it a goal to review all the 2016-released movie I see. Out of the 7 new movies I saw at home, I only actually reviewed 3 of them. Must do better!
How did your movie stats for 2015 work out? Excited for the 2016 movie year?
Saturday, October 11, 2014
The Janeite Tag
Thanks to Hannah over at Miss Daydreamer's Place for tagging me to talk about my love for Jane Austen!
The Rules:
- Thank and link back to the person who tagged you.
- Tell us how you were introduced to Jane Austen and share one fun fact about your Janeite life (this fun fact can be anything from "I stayed up all night reading Emma" to "I visited Chawton and met Anna Chancellor.").
- Answer the tagger's questions.
- Write seven questions of your own.
- Tag as few as one or as many as seven other Janeites and let them know you've tagged them.
My introduction to the world of Jane Austen:
It would be hard to pinpoint the exact moment I became a fan of Austen, but it was sometime between when I first saw the 1995 Pride and Prejudice when I was about eleven, and when I finished reading all her books for the first time, when I was about eighteen. It was probably closer to the latter though, because even though I would watch P&P with my family every time they watched it, it took a while for me to come to appreciate anything more than the pretty dresses and the pretty horses. It could have been in '08, when the new version of Sense and Sensibility aired on TV, and waiting a week between episodes was filled with impatience. Or you could argue that it was when I first appreciated Austen's work in it's purest form; perhaps when I was at the end of Emma and it suddenly occurred to me how much I'd enjoyed the book -- way more than either of the film adaptions. To quote Lizzy on her loving Darcy, "It has been coming on so gradually, that I hardly know when it began. But I believe I must date it from my first seeing his beautiful grounds at Pemberly." So I guess you could say it really was the pretty dresses!
My fun fact about me and Austen:
This past summer I portrayed Mary Bennet in my theatre group's performance of Pride and Prejudice, a Musical. I got to sing and play the piano badly and everything. And now I feel slightly more connected to and understanding of poor Mary.
Hannah's Questions:
Oh, starting with a hard one, I see. I remember enjoying reading Emma the most, but I wouldn't take that to mean it was my favorite. Northanger Abbey made me laugh the most, and Persuasion was wonderfully melancholy. But I think I'll have to go with the classic, and say Pride and Prejudice. It has a little of everything, and I think the best romance.
Who is your favourite Austen hero and heroine? (I guess that could be considered two questions!) So since it's two questions, I can pick a hero and heroine who hail from separate stories? If I had to choose them as a pair, I'd say Catherine Morland and Henry Tilney. They are just so adorable together. Separately, I've always been partial to Mr. Knightley, and identified most with Elinor Dashwood. But don't underestimate my liking of Lizzy and Darcy, separately, and as a pair.
Who is your favourite secondary character?
It's funny how most of Austen's secondary characters are usually pretty dis-likable, isn't it? I could never really find it in me to dislike Mr. Churchill though, ever since I first saw him as Ewan McGregor with that adorable smile and that weird, long red hair.
Which relative of any of Austen's heroines/heroes do you find most annoying?
Mrs. Bennet. Next question! Oh, wait, maybe Lady Catherine... hmmm, no, I'll stick with Mrs. Bennet.
Provide up to five of your favourite Austen quotes. (I know, hard! Just pick a few random quotes that you love. They don't have to be your absolute favourites) (Passages, more like, for me!)
- (A hilarious conversation between Catherine and Henry in Northanger Abbey.)‘“Now I must give one smirk, and then we may be
rational again." Catherine turned away her head, not knowing whether she
might venture to laugh. "I see what you think of me," said he gravely
-- "I shall make but a poor figure in your journal tomorrow."
"My journal!"
"Yes, I know exactly what you will say: Friday, went to the Lower Rooms; wore my sprigged muslin robe with blue trimmings -- plain black shoes -- appeared to much advantage; but was strangely harassed by a queer, half-witted man, who would make me dance with him, and distressed me by his nonsense."
"Indeed I shall say no such thing."
"Shall I tell you what you ought to say?"
"If you please."
"I danced with a very agreeable young man, introduced by Mr. King; had a great deal of conversation with him -- seems a most extraordinary genius -- hope I may know more of him. That, madam, is what I wish you to say."’ - (My admitting to liking this one might make me out to be anti-social, but, oh well. Said by Lizzy.) "The more I see of the world, the more am I dissatisfied with it; and every day confirms my belief of the inconsistency of all human characters, and of the little dependence that can be placed on the appearance of either merit or sense."
- (This one from Mr. Bennet reflects the lighter side of my anti-social tendencies.) "For what do we live, but to make sport for our neighbours, and laugh at them in our turn?"
- (This is one of my favorite moments of Elinor's.)"My dear," said she [Mrs. Jennings], entering, "I have just recollected that I have
some of the finest old Constantia wine in the
house, that ever was tasted -- so I have brought a glass of it for
your sister. My poor husband! how fond he was of it! Whenever he had
a touch of his old cholicky gout, he said it did him more good than
anything else in the world. Do take it to your sister."
"Dear ma'am," replied Elinor, smiling at the difference of the complaints for which it was recommended, "how good you are! But I have just left Marianne in bed, and, I hope, almost asleep; and as I think nothing will be of so much service to her as rest, if you will give me leave, I will drink the wine myself."
Mrs. Jennings, though regretting that she had not been five minutes earlier, was satisfied with the compromise; and Elinor, as she swallowed the chief of it, reflected that, though its good effects on a cholicky gout were at present of little importance to her, its healing powers on a disappointed heart might be as reasonably tried on herself as on her sister. - (And since I've already made this very, very long, I'll put Mr. Knightly's declaration of love last. Not the entire thing though. But I like the entire thing.) “My dearest Emma," said he, "for dearest you will always be, whatever
the event of this hour's conversation, my dearest, most beloved Emma --
tell me at once. Say 'No,' if it is to be said." She could really say
nothing. "You are silent," he cried, with great animation; "absolutely
silent! at present I ask no more."
Emma was almost ready to sink under the agitation of this moment. The dread of being awakened from the happiest dream, was perhaps the most prominent feeling.
"I cannot make speeches, Emma," he soon resumed; and in a tone of such sincere, decided, intelligible tenderness as was tolerably convincing. "If I loved you less, I might be able to talk about it more. But you know what I am. You hear nothing but truth from me. I have blamed you, and lectured you, and you have borne it as no other woman in England would have borne it.”
What is your favourite adaptation for each of Austen's books?
For Pride and Prejudice, the '95 version. Hands down, no contest. (If you're interested, here is my review of the '95, and my review of the '05.)
Northanger Abbey is also easy, since I've only ever seen the '07 version with Felicity Jones and J J Feild. In spite of it's shortness, I consider it to be a very good adaption, perfectly cast at the very least. With the rest though, things get a little more complicated. (Click here for my review.)
For Sense and Sensibility, the '08 version. It's a close call though, as the '95 version is great as well, but the longer runtime, the casting of people who look like they could be their required age, the great casting of the side characters, Dan Stevens, and David Morressey all make me partial to that version.
With Emma, there are commendable aspects in three versions, but I've never really included Kate Beckinsale's version; the race is really between Gwyneth Paltrow's and Romola Garai's, and they're practically equal, only with differing good parts and bad parts. Combined, they would be nearly perfect, but as it is, I think I must go with Paltrow's version, because it's better-made in its own right.
For Mansfield Park, I have to say the '07 version with Billie Piper. None of these adaptations are very good, but the 1999 is just way too different from the book, and the 1983 is old and of low quality had distractingly ugly actors. Plus the '07 has James D'Arcy in it.
With Persuasion it's halfway like Emma -- if I could combine the versions it would make a good one -- and halfway like Mansfield Park -- there really aren't any good versions. The '95 version is certainly the best adaptation, but it doesn't have the heart (however misguided) of the '07 version. Neither does the characters how I see them. (Click here for my review of the '07 version. But know that my opinion of since writing this has dampened slightly.)
Are there any books that you would recommend to a fellow Janeite? For example: some books that I would recommend to a fellow Jane Austen fan are Much Ado About Nothing, North and South and Cold Comfort Farm.
Oh yes, I definitely agree with the recommendation of North and South. Great book and film adaptation. If you can handle longer and darker, I would recommend Little Dorrit, which was amazing, and more romantic than I expected it to be. (And it has a fantastic, 8-hour-long film adaptation too (my review)) And perhaps if I'd read other Dickens' I could possibly recommend those, of maybe a Bronte, but sadly Austen is just about as far as I've gone with that type of novel. The next closest thing that springs to mind is The Great Gatsby, but I'd recommend that to anyone. If you like the Austen-type movies though, you absolutely must see Cranford -- it's wonderful.
 |
| Little Dorrit |
It seems that all my Janeite blog friends have been tagged already, I'm going to opt out of the last two steps. However, if you do love Austen, haven't been tagged yet, and want to participate, you absolutely should -- consider yourself tagged and answer the same questions I did!
Tuesday, September 16, 2014
Battle of the Five Armies -- New Photo
Like with they did for the first movie (can't remember about the second -- anyone?) Peter Jackson and Co. have released a "tapestry" photo for The Battle of the Five Armies. (Or, as I fondly think of it, There and Back Again. Infinitely easier to type.)
Click here to see the full size.
First of all, I couldn't be happier with the image of Bard's silhouette facing Smaug. Looking so small compared to the dragon, but amazingly epic. As soon as I finish this, I'm going to do some cropping and add it to my computer background slideshow.
Then in the very next frame, we have "what in the world is going on?" It appears that Gandalf will be getting Galadriel into trouble. Not very nice of him.
I also really like the green section of Thorin on his throne, looking kingly and brooding and epic. And Bilbo, great as always, no surprise there.
Tauriel is looking very beat up, but Legolas is still pretty.
There's Thranduil's giant white elk again, and it also looks like one of those five armies has some giant goats at their disposal.
Then there's Thorin again in battle with his nephew's Kili and Fili, looking good.
And Bilbo in the hero shot. I am wondering about the flock (pack? swarm?) of bats above him though. I hope PJ remembered that he's already done giant bats in King Kong.
My excitement for this film has been duly kicked up another notch.
Click here to see the full size.
First of all, I couldn't be happier with the image of Bard's silhouette facing Smaug. Looking so small compared to the dragon, but amazingly epic. As soon as I finish this, I'm going to do some cropping and add it to my computer background slideshow.
Then in the very next frame, we have "what in the world is going on?" It appears that Gandalf will be getting Galadriel into trouble. Not very nice of him.
I also really like the green section of Thorin on his throne, looking kingly and brooding and epic. And Bilbo, great as always, no surprise there.
Tauriel is looking very beat up, but Legolas is still pretty.
There's Thranduil's giant white elk again, and it also looks like one of those five armies has some giant goats at their disposal.
Then there's Thorin again in battle with his nephew's Kili and Fili, looking good.
And Bilbo in the hero shot. I am wondering about the flock (pack? swarm?) of bats above him though. I hope PJ remembered that he's already done giant bats in King Kong.
My excitement for this film has been duly kicked up another notch.
Monday, August 18, 2014
How To Watch A Movie -- now on Facebook!
After a very long time of putting it off with many sad excuses for good reasons, yesterday I finally created a Facebook fan page for this blog of mine. The current
plan is to share posts from here, but also to release content exclusively to my fan page that I would
consider to not be important enough to devote an entire blog post to,
such as small bits of news, or photos, posters, and trailers.
So click here to check it out and "like" it if you so desire!
Also, if you have a Facebook page for your blog, leave a link in the comments, so I can do the same for you!
So click here to check it out and "like" it if you so desire!
Also, if you have a Facebook page for your blog, leave a link in the comments, so I can do the same for you!
Friday, July 18, 2014
Anticipating The Guardians of the Galaxy
Confession time: I have not, to the best of my memory, ever read a superhero comic. So I have no previous knowledge about this superhero sci-fi action/adventure comedy called Guardians of the Galaxy, but it's as highly anticipated for me as a Marvel movie can be. (Marvel movies can be anticipated to a stronger degree than regular movies, don't cha know?) I may not be a comic reader, but I am certainly a Marvel fan, and I knew I would see this movie the moment I knew it existed. But I don't devote entire posts to the subject of anticipating something lightly. Here are 7 reasons why my excited anticipation is so extreme:
1. The cast of characters.
The last time Marvel gave us a cast this unprecedented it was 2012, and it broke box-office records. Of course this is pretty different -- none of these characters have previous solo films. But they all look pretty fantastic in their own way.
Bradley Cooper is voicing Rocket, the raccoon with serious anger issues. (In the normal way, not in the turn-green-and-grow-huge-muscles way.) He appears to be the character that everyone will either adore or despise. I plan on adoring. And Vin Deisel is voicing Groot. The "tree." He says everything by saying, "I am Groot." Should be hilarious.
Dave Bautista is Drax. Very large, green and red patterned skin, no shirts required. I tried to figure out what their Avenger equivalent would be, and I got stuck with Rocket and Groot, (combined, they make up the Hulk) but Drax's would have to be Thor. The crazy muscles help of course, but mostly because Drax's way of speaking is very Shakespearean, and the intricacies of language escape him.
Zoe Saldana is a mysterious alien again as Gamora, but this time green. And the pink hair ends is a good touch. (Everyone knows the pink goes good with green, right?) She also gets some very dramatic cheekbones, and I would be surprised if she is given every ounce of dry wit this movie has to offer. Obviously, she's the Black Widow of the group, but even if she wasn't a girl, she'd probably still get the title. She looks to be the best at hand to hand combat, and is a loner, emotionless, and scary. Oh yeah, and pretty.
And Chris Pratt is the hero that no one has heard of, Star-Lord. Or just Peter Quill. Of Earth. The movie hasn't even released yet, but he's still already the latest go-to guy for a charming and handsome leading action/adventure man. You could attribute it to all the weight he lost for this role, but are people really that shallow? Uhm... Well, Director James Gunn isn't; he was ready to cast him and give him a CG six-pack. Fortunately that wasn't necessary. Star-Lord is the Iron Man (charming and cocky) Captain America (sincere leader) and Hawkeye (epitome of cool) of this group all at once, and is as good-looking as whichever one you choose. But the best comparison really is that he's like a space Indiana Jones. So, basically, he's Han Solo.
And of course as a diligent Doctor Who fan, I must mention Karen Gillan as villainous lady Nebula. She shaved her head for this role, and looks awesome. I mean just absolutely fantastic. I have no idea what her character will be like, but do not doubt of its incredible-ness. And I fully expect an epic battle between her and Gamora.
Neither do I doubt the incredible-ness of Lee Pace (aka Thranduil of the Hobbit movies) as Ronan, (the ACCUSER!) who is the main villain of this film. Keep rocking those eyebrows, elf-king. I look forward to your evil monologues.
The rest of my points are all very closely connected. There is: 2. The trailer. Which features: 3. The soundtrack. Which helps give the movie: 4. The unique style.
Here's the original trailer which introduces the characters with some humor and gives out a taste of the snazzy action, all to the tune of Blue Swede's Hooked on a Feeling:
And the second trailer, which makes a valiant attempt to show us a serious and epic film, but can't help adding in a little comedy at the end.
And here's something fun -- a trailer for the original Star Wars trilogy, in the style of Guardians of the Galaxy! It makes me want to re-watch Star Wars almost as much as I want to see Guardians.
It's really the music that does it. Speaking of, below is the official GotG soundtrack cover.
And here is the track list:
As for the style, well, I've never seen a James Gunn film before, so I don't know exactly what his style is. I do know that he was hired so that he could lend his unique style and flair to the film. And if any of what we're seeing here is at all a clue... with the overall overwhelming boldness... the quirky characters... the dark, gritty tone... with a shiny, space finish...
And just look at that color palette! The dark earth-tones contrasted with bright neons. Every single one of these pictures is a work of art in itself. Just look at the textures, and the lighting and the contrast...
Okay I'm getting a little of-topic. Photos and trailers have been misleading before, but if they were any indication, we're in for a real treat with this movie, and making it in the style of James Gunn was the right decision.
6. I have one final point to make. It's very simple, and gives the film the most credibility, and can be summed up in one word: Marvel. I trust that they know what they're doing (because they really really do) and am staking a ton of hope on the success and awesomeness of their latest film. I usually think it is unwise to set expectations so high and risk disappointment, but this is much more fun right now.
7. Wait wait, I forgot one. And this is, like, all my points combined. Very important. Look:
Their tagline is "You're welcome." People. Their tagline is "YOU'RE WELCOME."
So, tell me: on a scale of 1 to "dying," how excited for this movie are you? What in particular is most exciting to you? (I'm assuming you are at least a little bit excited since you made it to the end of this post.) (Did you notice I skipped number 5? I did. Just now. And now I guess I'll leave it.) And isn't that the absolute best tagline ever?
1. The cast of characters.
 |
| An assassin, a thief, a raccoon, a maniac, and a tree walk into a lineup.... |
The last time Marvel gave us a cast this unprecedented it was 2012, and it broke box-office records. Of course this is pretty different -- none of these characters have previous solo films. But they all look pretty fantastic in their own way.
Bradley Cooper is voicing Rocket, the raccoon with serious anger issues. (In the normal way, not in the turn-green-and-grow-huge-muscles way.) He appears to be the character that everyone will either adore or despise. I plan on adoring. And Vin Deisel is voicing Groot. The "tree." He says everything by saying, "I am Groot." Should be hilarious.
Dave Bautista is Drax. Very large, green and red patterned skin, no shirts required. I tried to figure out what their Avenger equivalent would be, and I got stuck with Rocket and Groot, (combined, they make up the Hulk) but Drax's would have to be Thor. The crazy muscles help of course, but mostly because Drax's way of speaking is very Shakespearean, and the intricacies of language escape him.
Zoe Saldana is a mysterious alien again as Gamora, but this time green. And the pink hair ends is a good touch. (Everyone knows the pink goes good with green, right?) She also gets some very dramatic cheekbones, and I would be surprised if she is given every ounce of dry wit this movie has to offer. Obviously, she's the Black Widow of the group, but even if she wasn't a girl, she'd probably still get the title. She looks to be the best at hand to hand combat, and is a loner, emotionless, and scary. Oh yeah, and pretty.
And Chris Pratt is the hero that no one has heard of, Star-Lord. Or just Peter Quill. Of Earth. The movie hasn't even released yet, but he's still already the latest go-to guy for a charming and handsome leading action/adventure man. You could attribute it to all the weight he lost for this role, but are people really that shallow? Uhm... Well, Director James Gunn isn't; he was ready to cast him and give him a CG six-pack. Fortunately that wasn't necessary. Star-Lord is the Iron Man (charming and cocky) Captain America (sincere leader) and Hawkeye (epitome of cool) of this group all at once, and is as good-looking as whichever one you choose. But the best comparison really is that he's like a space Indiana Jones. So, basically, he's Han Solo.
 |
| Look at this picture and then tell me honestly that it doesn't remind you of Indy. I can just see him rubbing his chin, and then pulling out a bag of sand... |
And of course as a diligent Doctor Who fan, I must mention Karen Gillan as villainous lady Nebula. She shaved her head for this role, and looks awesome. I mean just absolutely fantastic. I have no idea what her character will be like, but do not doubt of its incredible-ness. And I fully expect an epic battle between her and Gamora.
 |
| This is what happens when you stop traveling with The Doctor, Amy... |
Neither do I doubt the incredible-ness of Lee Pace (aka Thranduil of the Hobbit movies) as Ronan, (the ACCUSER!) who is the main villain of this film. Keep rocking those eyebrows, elf-king. I look forward to your evil monologues.
The rest of my points are all very closely connected. There is: 2. The trailer. Which features: 3. The soundtrack. Which helps give the movie: 4. The unique style.
Here's the original trailer which introduces the characters with some humor and gives out a taste of the snazzy action, all to the tune of Blue Swede's Hooked on a Feeling:
And the second trailer, which makes a valiant attempt to show us a serious and epic film, but can't help adding in a little comedy at the end.
And here's something fun -- a trailer for the original Star Wars trilogy, in the style of Guardians of the Galaxy! It makes me want to re-watch Star Wars almost as much as I want to see Guardians.
It's really the music that does it. Speaking of, below is the official GotG soundtrack cover.
 |
| Seriously. It doesn't get more awesome than this. |
And here is the track list:
- "Hooked on a Feeling" Performed by Blue Swede
- "Go All the Way" Performed by Raspberries
- "Spirit in the Sky" Performed by Norman Greenbaum
- "Moonage Daydream" Performed by David Bowie
- "Fooled Around and Fell in Love" Performed by Elvin Bishop
- "I'm Not in Love" Performed by 10cc
- "I Want You Back" Performed by Jackson 5
- "Come and Get Your Love" Performed by Redbone
- "Cherry Bomb" Performed by The Runaways
- "Escape (The Piña Colada Song)" Performed by Rupert Holmes
- "O-O-H Child" Performed by The Five Stairsteps
- "Ain't No Mountain High Enough" Performed by Marvin Gaye and Tammi Terrell
As for the style, well, I've never seen a James Gunn film before, so I don't know exactly what his style is. I do know that he was hired so that he could lend his unique style and flair to the film. And if any of what we're seeing here is at all a clue... with the overall overwhelming boldness... the quirky characters... the dark, gritty tone... with a shiny, space finish...
And just look at that color palette! The dark earth-tones contrasted with bright neons. Every single one of these pictures is a work of art in itself. Just look at the textures, and the lighting and the contrast...
Okay I'm getting a little of-topic. Photos and trailers have been misleading before, but if they were any indication, we're in for a real treat with this movie, and making it in the style of James Gunn was the right decision.
6. I have one final point to make. It's very simple, and gives the film the most credibility, and can be summed up in one word: Marvel. I trust that they know what they're doing (because they really really do) and am staking a ton of hope on the success and awesomeness of their latest film. I usually think it is unwise to set expectations so high and risk disappointment, but this is much more fun right now.
7. Wait wait, I forgot one. And this is, like, all my points combined. Very important. Look:
Their tagline is "You're welcome." People. Their tagline is "YOU'RE WELCOME."
So, tell me: on a scale of 1 to "dying," how excited for this movie are you? What in particular is most exciting to you? (I'm assuming you are at least a little bit excited since you made it to the end of this post.) (Did you notice I skipped number 5? I did. Just now. And now I guess I'll leave it.) And isn't that the absolute best tagline ever?
Saturday, March 29, 2014
Top 20 Movie Posters: 10-1
Just in case you missed it, here is yesterday's post containing numbers 20 through 11, and my rambling explanation of how the list is organized.
Now on to my top ten!
Part 3: Respect the Artistry
Now this is a bold move. White background and thick black lettering -- bold. No faces or pictures or even actor names of any kind -- bold. "Censoring" all the text to make it rather hard to even read -- very bold. And it worked. That's all. (4 of 4 I haven't seen)
It's enough for me that Jim Carrey's handsome mug is filling the whole poster with such an unfailingly optimistic expression, but it's made up of a collage of moments in the unknowing character's life -- a creative and memorable way of expressing the movie's theme and premise.
What is it that you need in a poster to convince someone to go see the advertized film? In the case of Star Trek, all you need is those two words, in that font. That b-e-a-U-tiful abstract depiction of the Enterprise blasting into the unknown is just icing on the fanboy's (girl's) cake.
Bridges. Damon. Brolin. Coens. True Grit. Every bit of information you'd need to decide if you want to see this movie is right there. (And the answer is yes, by the way.) But just in case you're still lost and unsure, there's the bold western wanted poster style, and that there bullet hole with blood dripping down. Oh yes.
Okay this one's pretty incredible. It has the innovative design and uncluttered minimalism of my #1 and #2 (the smoothness is a good contrast to other Dark Knight posters with cluttered, debris-filled backgrounds) and, the emotional weight of my #1 and #3. It lands at #6 simply because it's too twisted and unsettling for me to wholeheartedly love.
Part 4: Getting Personal
Doesn't this poster just tickle and excite your adventurous side? Burning ships, crashing planes, a globetrotting trenchcoat wearer with unusual hair and an animal sidekick. The serious atmosphere and dramatic lighting, and the unabashed adventurous spirit it evokes (along with a certain name) promises less of the silly kiddie fare and more of the pure action/adventure fun of Indiana Jones. Oh, and by the way, Tintin delivers on his promises.
Grab your towel, and don't panic. As a representation of one of the most odd-ball adventures through space out there, this poster doesn't quite convey the extreme extent of gleeful ridiculousness the film possesses. It focuses more on the visual splendor and spacey style -- which is gleeful and ridiculous in its own right -- and invites with bold, friendly letters, and assorted randomness hurling though blue starry space -- who wouldn't want to come along?
The New York Times says the movie is "ferociously suspenseful." I agree, and feel the same about this poster. The image strikes tension and dreadful excitement into you with the force of the explosion you sense is coming, but without being too obvious about it's intentions. You wonder what will happen; you feel the grit and honesty of the moment, and even though you can't see his face, if you know that's Jeremy Renner (now you do) you suddenly know the acting would just, well... blow you away. See what I did there?
It was a tough call between #3 and #2 for this spot, but this Super 8 poster lands it for one reason: rotate this poster 45 degrees counter-clockwise, and instead of ruining it, it's still a great poster. I prefer it turned this way though. Okay that's not all -- I also love the beautiful monotone landscape, the boiling clouds, the silhouettes, the little hint of sci-fy, and the fact that none of it is too overshadowed by showy text and/or lots of fine print. Minimal information; maximum intrigue.
Gosh, what it there to say that doesn't point out the obvious? The psychedelic moon surrounding the lonely astronaut design is so minimal, yet incredibly unique and perfectly evokes the quiet, unsettled feel of the film; the lighting, color, balance of the text and the image... all flawless. And unassuming at first, but knowledge of the movie helps you realize the effort and thought that must have gone into assembling this piece -- just like the film it represents so perfectly. An easy pick for my #1.
Now feel free to tell me which ones I forgot -- I'm sure there are many. And maybe which ones you agree with me on?
Now on to my top ten!
Part 3: Respect the Artistry
Honorable mentions:
 |
| If fact many Shyamalan films have neat, artistic posters; a cute, warm collage of JGL's movie obsession; simple slick and stylish for the latest 007 flick. (review) |
 |
| #10. Zero Dark Thirty |
 |
| #9. The Truman Show |
 |
| #8. Star Trek |
 |
| #7. True Grit |
 |
| #6. The Dark Knight |
Part 4: Getting Personal
Honorable mentions:
 |
| I love this immaculate, beautiful image, but as a poster it needs less words; Shakespeare knew how to throw a party, Joss Whedon knew how to update into his signature style, and whoever made this poster knew what they were doing too (review); the teaser for the beginning of Bilbo's journey is inviting and expectant. (review) |
 |
| #5. The Adventures of Tintin |
 |
| #4. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy |
 |
| #3. The Hurt Locker |
 |
| #2. Super 8 |
 |
| #1. Moon |
Now feel free to tell me which ones I forgot -- I'm sure there are many. And maybe which ones you agree with me on?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)