October was pretty slow, new-movie-wise. I spent most of my time catching up on movies like Dumbo and Yesterday, and then watching seasonal horror flicks as my nerves allowed. But the month started out fantastically with Joker, a beautifully complex movie that feels culturally important and closed off the season with a resounding bang. (Read my review here!)
Now Oscar season will gear up over November so there's a lot of movies that I think look objectively good but am simply not interested in. That's how it goes for me, and it's kinda sad. But there are a few that I definitely want to see so I'll probably stay busy. I just hope there's some truly great movies buried somewhere in there! What looks good to you this month?
Motherless Brooklyn
In theaters November 1st; R
Wow, how have I not heard of this one yet? Edward Norton stars. Edward Norton directs. Edward Norton writes. And it's a noir crime mystery movie set in the 50's and the PI has Tourettes. That sounds like the most awesome thing I've ever heard of! Reviews are sorta mixed so far, so maybe it's not amazing, but I don't think it'll have to be to be a winning movie in my book. The style looks epic, I like long movies, I like movies with singular visions, and I don't mind if noir mystery plots are boring or don't make sense as long as the characters are fascinating and unique. So. I'm sold.
Terminator: Dark Fate
In theaters November 1st; R
Here we go again. Just for fun, here's my ranking of Terminator movies so far: 1, 2, Salvation, 3, Genisys. This one I expect will go on the end, but who knows, maybe the returning cast will help it beat out that awful, un-spellable Genisys. Even though they're super old now. Ugh this movie just looks so lifeless. I just hope it's good to make fun of once it's streaming.
The Irishman
In theaters November 1st, on Netflix Nov 27th; R
Unless something changes I'll be going the Netflix route. I don't have a ton of interest in this but since it'll be on Netflix I'm sure I'll give it a chance. And I expect it to be good, even. Even with the de-aging which I still don't think is a good idea. It looks entertaining and stylish and has a cast that's worth seeing. I'm just neither excited nor uninterested.
Marriage Story
Limited theater release November 6th, on Netflix December 6th; R
The last thing. In the world. That I want to do. Is watch Scarlett Johansson and Adam Driver get a divorce and go through a custody battle. But it's going to be on Netflix in December, so I won't be able to resist, just because it is Scarlett Johansson and Adam Driver. Ugh. I would love it if the movie ended with them changing their minds and sticking it out for the sake of their kid and then realizing that was the best route after all.... but propaganda doesn't work that way.
Doctor Sleep
In theaters November 8th; R
A wonderful excuse to get my dad and other brother to watch The Shining with me! Also I'm always down for any movie with Ewan McGregor in the lead. It doesn't look exactly great -- certainly not the the same way The Shining was great -- but it does look quite fun in an action-y trippy, super dramatic way, and that's how I prefer my horror films.
Midway
In theaters November 8th; PG-13
I wasn't interested in this until I saw Patrick Wilson was in it. Now... I'm still pretty not interested. I mean sure it has a nice cast. Ed Skrein, Keean Johnson (who were in Alita together) Luke Evans, Woody Harrelson, Aaron Eckhart, Luke Kleintank of The Man in the High Castle, Dennis Quaid... Darren Criss... Nick Jonas... haha. It just looks so annoyingly shiny. You know, that "everything looks too clean and bland to be real" look? This movie has it worse than anything I've seen before. No style. Nothing that seems tangible. Even the people look airbrushed. I hate it. Maybe the battle's done really well, but I'll probably still hate it.
Last Christmas
In theaters November 8th;PG-13
I don't really care for Emilia Clarke too much, but she's definitely at her very best in rom-coms, and Henry Golding was great in Crazy Rich Asians but seemed to miss out of the full romance potential he has in that, so hopefully he makes up for it here. It's probably too much to hope that it'll be streaming by Christmas but I seriously doubt I'll go to the theaters for it. I guess I'll see it when I see it, Christmastime or no. I won't expect much but it looks enjoyable.
Honey Boy
Limited release November 9th; R
I'm actually, really, strangely eager to see this. I'm not super interested in Shia LaBeouf usually, so I think the main reason this has sparked my interest is the apparently strange mix of fiction and reality that it is. It doesn't claim to be based on a true story, but it is about Shia's life. So it's from his perspective but not in a way that claims fact. It is (hopefully) more about the way he saw the world and his dad and himself -- and I find that fascinating. I love movies that are from an individual perspective. Beyond that, I love how much of Shia I can see in both Lucas Hedges and Noah Jupe who play the "Shia" character at different ages. That kind of acting is reason enough to see it!
Danger Close
Limited release and streaming November 8th; R
A bunch of Australians and New Zealanders fight in the Vietnam war? Sounds pretty great, even if it is based on a true story. The trailer makes it look solid too. Like it has style and will be epic and dramatic. Starring Travis Fimmel, with Bullseye from The Punisher and Henry Bowers from IT.
Love is Blind
Limited release and streaming November 8th; NR
Haha, well, I feel like the plot is going to completely fall apart... but it's a romance movie starring Aiden Turner, so what can I say? I'll watch it. Never seen the girl, Shannon Tarbet before, but it also has Benjamin Walker, Chloe Sevigny, and Matthew Broderick.
Ford v Ferrari
In theaters November 15th; PG-13
This is guaranteed going to be one of those movies based on a true story where the true story isn't interesting enough to be cinematic by itself so a ton of embellishments and additions will go in, plus as much style and quality as the director can muster -- and it's still just going to boil down to an acting vehicle (Pun. Intended.) for Christian Bale and Matt Damon, so that they can compete over who gets nominated for best actor this year at the Oscars. James Mangold directing is the one thing about it that's remotely interesting to me.
The Lodge
Limited release November 15th; R
Ooo! A cult movie? With Riley Keough, Jaeden Martell and Richard Armitage? Sounds great as long as it's not too scary but who am I kidding it's probably too scary. Maybe I'll watch it next year for Halloween, I'm all horror-movied out at the moment.
Frozen II
In theaters November 22nd; PG
I'm just here to say, "No thanks."
A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood
In theaters November 22nd; NR
I guess Oscar season is about to be full-swing. This movie looks sweet and genuinely good, but I really wouldn't take much notice without the buzz, as I never watched Mr. Rogers. I bet the movie will be good and I bet that Tom Hanks will get the nom, especially since it's for supporting instead of lead. And I very well might see it someday too, and probably enjoy it if I do. But the chances of it being a special personally meaningful film to me and next to zero. That's just how it goes, sorry.
Knives Out
In theaters November 27th; PG-13
I like a good, smart whodunit, and I like all of Rian Johnson's original films, so I definitely want to give this one a chance. But I hear tell of how it's more interested in politics than storytelling and that makes me wary. I was afraid after Star Wars that Johnson would embrace what that movie made him to the general public -- a kind of movie-making troll whose movies you like if you're from one side just on principle, and aren't allowed to if you're from the other. I'd like to enjoy this. But I'm going to judge it as a film and a story. Not on what it says. Cast: Daniel Craig, Chris Evans, Jamie Lee Curtis, Michael Shannon, Toni Collette, Ana De Armas, LaKeith Stanfield, Jaeden Martell and Christopher Plummer.
Showing posts with label Robert De Niro. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Robert De Niro. Show all posts
Friday, November 1, 2019
Tuesday, October 8, 2019
Joker
Spoiler-free!
What I expected to be a dark and disturbing downer meant to leave me unsettled and unhappy, is instead an intense and scrutinizing look at a descent into madness and villainy, so thorough and unflinching that one can't help but see a reflection of themselves hidden within the frames. In a day when movies about villains are just movies about anti-heroes, and comic book movies are more commodity than art, Joker reminds us of how relevant and uniquely valuable a medium they can be.
Joaquin Phoenix takes on the role of the iconic villain in the rich setting of late 70's/early 80's Gotham City. Arthur Fleck is clown-for-hire striving to keep smiling in a rough and messed-up world. In gradual progression, the film shows us what it takes to transform him into the Joker that we know and love. The journey is too long and complex to break down, but the important thing is the way it draws you in to start. Though we know his villainous fate, we must be invested in the decent -- to take the ride along with him -- for the movie to make the impact it desires. Two or three scenes hook you at the beginning, and then the slow reeling in process begins.
I think it's wonderful that this film is making people angry. I can only imagine it's a visceral reaction to having a mirror thrust so unexpectedly in their face and showing them something that they don't want to recognize. I found myself doing a little soul-searching last night, that's for sure. But though this film is politicized, it isn't political. It doesn't show left and right, but rather an up and down balance of right and wrong. Gotham politics are similar to the divide and unrest in the real world today, but they are grown in an organic fictional environment rather than being transplanted to invoke cheap parallels. The fictionalization and over-the-top comic book style makes the open exploration on ideas palatable to a potentially stubborn audience -- exploring all sides of questions that we might otherwise dismiss offhand.
People keep saying they handled mental illness badly in this film, and I'm not sure what they mean by it. What I saw was the subject being handled with care, and like the rest of the film's subjects, being explored from all sides. I found Arthur's illness to be the most constant source of empathy throughout his descent. Particularly the condition that makes him laugh uncontrollably when he feels entirely different. Everyone asks him, "What's so funny?" never understanding his mind as we do. Makes you think twice about judging people based on assumptions and appearances. In fact, the film refrains from any kind of judgement altogether, counting on the audience's moral compass to draw the right conclusion. The movie itself embraces the madness -- but never glorifies it. Every beautiful moment has horror in it, and every horrible moment, tenderness. There is always a balance of tone and no idea is presented without being challenged.
Phoenix's performance is precise and extreme; he runs wild with an exact and calculated grace and balances the evil and the good side by side with great skill. No one could doubt that he can play a scene with honesty and complexity; what's remarkable about this performance is the characterization: The way he runs. The way he laughs. The way he dances. The way he sees himself in his imagination. The twisted glee that pokes through his shell before it bursts out of him like a shot and blossoms into the full-fledged character with immaculate timing. To be honest, I expected his take to be more of a twist on the character, so seeing him open into full Joker so effortlessly once everything was properly developed was nothing short of astounding. It's the best performance of the year, but it's also one of the most full and complete performances I've ever seen. It's immensely satisfying, heartbreaking, and glorious.
The imagery of the movie is beautiful, as many movies are, but sets itself apart by serving to elevate the film beyond making it look nice. Framing is all about evoking a visceral response, and colors used to convey emotion. Sets and lighting play their part in setting the right mood too. Gotham has never been more beautiful, looming, bold, or grimy. Scenes are filmed with purpose behind the structure, and the effect is that the film feels richer, and more focused. Intentional. My favorite, and perhaps the most obvious example, is the huge flight of stairs Arthur must traverse to go home every day. He trudges up them in weighty gloom day after day -- until he snaps, and dances down them, having embraced the new life he's descending towards.
I've heard Joker declared to be not really a comic book movie at all, and though it isn't what is currently expected of CBM's, being free of action sequences and the narrative structure of good fighting evil, it's not true that it's a basic, "one man's descent into madness." Since when was being a popcorn movie a requirement of CBM's, anyway? DC especially has a dark richness to it that practically begs for serious and introspective character studies like this one. Iconic characters and fleshed-out fictional worlds used to examine truths, ideas, and perspectives -- without the baggage of reality -- in vivid color, and that heightened aspect that comic books provide so effortlessly. Through the lens of a comic book, this tragedy becomes art in a way it never could otherwise.
Comic book films can be a lot of different things, and I'm glad to see that they haven't become completely pigeonholed yet. Joker is a difficult movie. Not so much because it's dark with disturbing aspects and a bleak ending. In fact, the ending isn't bleak at all, but you'd have to see the film to understand my meaning on that. Joker is difficult because it challenges you in ways you might not be prepared for; and connects with you in the same surprising manner. It moved me deeply, and I can't believe I'm saying this, but I cannot wait to go through it again. No, it's not bleak; it compels you to search for hope.
What I expected to be a dark and disturbing downer meant to leave me unsettled and unhappy, is instead an intense and scrutinizing look at a descent into madness and villainy, so thorough and unflinching that one can't help but see a reflection of themselves hidden within the frames. In a day when movies about villains are just movies about anti-heroes, and comic book movies are more commodity than art, Joker reminds us of how relevant and uniquely valuable a medium they can be.
 |
| Directed captivatingly by Todd Phillips, written along with Scott Silver. |
Joaquin Phoenix takes on the role of the iconic villain in the rich setting of late 70's/early 80's Gotham City. Arthur Fleck is clown-for-hire striving to keep smiling in a rough and messed-up world. In gradual progression, the film shows us what it takes to transform him into the Joker that we know and love. The journey is too long and complex to break down, but the important thing is the way it draws you in to start. Though we know his villainous fate, we must be invested in the decent -- to take the ride along with him -- for the movie to make the impact it desires. Two or three scenes hook you at the beginning, and then the slow reeling in process begins.
I think it's wonderful that this film is making people angry. I can only imagine it's a visceral reaction to having a mirror thrust so unexpectedly in their face and showing them something that they don't want to recognize. I found myself doing a little soul-searching last night, that's for sure. But though this film is politicized, it isn't political. It doesn't show left and right, but rather an up and down balance of right and wrong. Gotham politics are similar to the divide and unrest in the real world today, but they are grown in an organic fictional environment rather than being transplanted to invoke cheap parallels. The fictionalization and over-the-top comic book style makes the open exploration on ideas palatable to a potentially stubborn audience -- exploring all sides of questions that we might otherwise dismiss offhand.
 |
| This is not a Conservative film; it doesn't push propaganda of any kind. But it does feel out of place with Hollywood content common to today. |
People keep saying they handled mental illness badly in this film, and I'm not sure what they mean by it. What I saw was the subject being handled with care, and like the rest of the film's subjects, being explored from all sides. I found Arthur's illness to be the most constant source of empathy throughout his descent. Particularly the condition that makes him laugh uncontrollably when he feels entirely different. Everyone asks him, "What's so funny?" never understanding his mind as we do. Makes you think twice about judging people based on assumptions and appearances. In fact, the film refrains from any kind of judgement altogether, counting on the audience's moral compass to draw the right conclusion. The movie itself embraces the madness -- but never glorifies it. Every beautiful moment has horror in it, and every horrible moment, tenderness. There is always a balance of tone and no idea is presented without being challenged.
Phoenix's performance is precise and extreme; he runs wild with an exact and calculated grace and balances the evil and the good side by side with great skill. No one could doubt that he can play a scene with honesty and complexity; what's remarkable about this performance is the characterization: The way he runs. The way he laughs. The way he dances. The way he sees himself in his imagination. The twisted glee that pokes through his shell before it bursts out of him like a shot and blossoms into the full-fledged character with immaculate timing. To be honest, I expected his take to be more of a twist on the character, so seeing him open into full Joker so effortlessly once everything was properly developed was nothing short of astounding. It's the best performance of the year, but it's also one of the most full and complete performances I've ever seen. It's immensely satisfying, heartbreaking, and glorious.
 |
| Supporting actors include Robert De Niro, Zazie Beetz, Frances Conroy, Brett Cullen and Shea Whigham. They are all great, but this is Phoenix's movie. |
The imagery of the movie is beautiful, as many movies are, but sets itself apart by serving to elevate the film beyond making it look nice. Framing is all about evoking a visceral response, and colors used to convey emotion. Sets and lighting play their part in setting the right mood too. Gotham has never been more beautiful, looming, bold, or grimy. Scenes are filmed with purpose behind the structure, and the effect is that the film feels richer, and more focused. Intentional. My favorite, and perhaps the most obvious example, is the huge flight of stairs Arthur must traverse to go home every day. He trudges up them in weighty gloom day after day -- until he snaps, and dances down them, having embraced the new life he's descending towards.
I've heard Joker declared to be not really a comic book movie at all, and though it isn't what is currently expected of CBM's, being free of action sequences and the narrative structure of good fighting evil, it's not true that it's a basic, "one man's descent into madness." Since when was being a popcorn movie a requirement of CBM's, anyway? DC especially has a dark richness to it that practically begs for serious and introspective character studies like this one. Iconic characters and fleshed-out fictional worlds used to examine truths, ideas, and perspectives -- without the baggage of reality -- in vivid color, and that heightened aspect that comic books provide so effortlessly. Through the lens of a comic book, this tragedy becomes art in a way it never could otherwise.
 |
| If DC continues in this direction instead of blindly following the MCU, we're in for a treat. |
Comic book films can be a lot of different things, and I'm glad to see that they haven't become completely pigeonholed yet. Joker is a difficult movie. Not so much because it's dark with disturbing aspects and a bleak ending. In fact, the ending isn't bleak at all, but you'd have to see the film to understand my meaning on that. Joker is difficult because it challenges you in ways you might not be prepared for; and connects with you in the same surprising manner. It moved me deeply, and I can't believe I'm saying this, but I cannot wait to go through it again. No, it's not bleak; it compels you to search for hope.
Tuesday, August 9, 2016
The Intern
Spoilers.
In this chick flick by Nancy Meyers, the writer and director of one of my favorite rom-coms, Robert De Niro is Ben, a recently retired widower who gets a job as an intern for a up-and-coming online clothing store run by Jules (Anne Hathaway), a young and inexperienced but dedicated businesswoman.
Since I liked The Holiday so much, I thought this would certainly be worth a look, considering the nice cast, and the quirky trailer that promised a lighthearted good time. And as it started out it delivered on those promises. The setting in the open floor-space of the business gave everything a breezy feel, so there's a comfortable flow, and a few neat quirks to make it all memorable. It was like a happier, more modern The Devil Wears Prada. Anne Hathaway comes across as a good boss; friendly and kind, if also a perfectionist and not extremely personable. Robert De Niro's Ben is an unfailing optimist and a very classy gentleman, and he pulls off the adorable-old-man vibe perfectly.
I thought that I'd mirror the movie with this review. I started out with some promise and a few positives that seem to be leading in the right direction, but now I'm going to make you wonder how good this review might actually be. That's what the movie did next. As Jules doesn't warm to Ben, things start to stagnate. The super-positive work environment sometimes comes across as insincere; I would feel unnerved like something sinister was going on, or would be very aware that I was watching a movie. We find out that Jules has a family, which seems like an odd rabbit trail. I started liking the supporting characters more than the leads. Then, Ben wins Jules' approval and things appear to head back in the original direction.
That's when the robbery takes place. Sure, in the movie it's just breaking and entering to delete an accidentally sent email, but it sure did feel like a robbery to me. Suddenly the movie's relaxed charm was gone and replaced by unfunny situational comedy that served no other purpose than to extend the run time. In one scene this film went from cute-little-flick to tonally confusing and borderline disaster. But don't worry, it doesn't end there...
It gets much worse! After the original airy tone was discarded, a new one was quickly set in its place. Fortunately, it wasn't the dumb comic one you might expect considering the scene that brought on the change. No, it was actually what I'd call a haphazard melodrama. Either there was not enough girl power in the character of Jules, a woman who built up her own company from nothing with dedication, style, and grace... or too much. I'm not really sure. Which is it when you take a confident businesswoman (who's fair to her employees and so hands-on that she gives out her cell number to clients in case they have problems) and turn her into a weepy mess of indecision and neediness? What is the goal here?
Eventually, all this movie wants to do is preach to us about feminism, and sexism, and gender roles and things like that. I have my own opinions on those subjects, but no matter what perspective I look at it from, it's not good on a storytelling level. It's not entertaining or compelling here. Jules' home life falls apart because she spends every waking hour working, and then her husband Matt (Anders Holm) "makes a stupid mistake" and cheats on her. Whoops! This very efficiently turns him into that character that typically the female lead is dating at the beginning of the rom-com and eventually is happily rid of, except his speech about how he'll do better actually works. She forgives him, but she continues to work just as much, so everything's hunky-dory, but nothing has changed.
The message the film brings to this is that it wasn't Jules' fault that Matt cheated, which of course is true; so obviously true to me, that I thought it was odd and unnecessary how big a point they made out of it. However, just because Jules' constant absence isn't a free pass or even a bad excuse to cheat doesn't mean that it was okay for her to be such a workaholic, and it's presented that it was. Seriously, in every movie where a man is never home and obsessed with work he's invariably put in a bad light and either is a flawed character that must change, or is an actual villain -- and those morals ring true. Are we really supposed to accept that it's fine that Jules values her job over her family?
Back to criticizing the entertainment aspects: Around when the political agenda is heating up is when the entertainment takes the backseat. There's very little comedy left, and everything melts into a puddle of tears -- and unconvincing, unmoving ones at that. Sad characters drag the movie down. Drama appears out of nowhere and tries to pull the plot in awkward directions. Jules' character arc set up at the beginning is abandoned for a cheap, flimsy one, and the problem set up at the beginning of the company needing a CEO is suddenly not nearly so urgent and is dismissed with a wave of the hand. Ben also loses a lot of interest, but does remain the film's most consistent and best character throughout. Other characters are completely forgotten, like Becky (Christina Scherer) who feels undermined and underused, and her suitor (Adam Devine) who's trying to get back into her good graces.
Nat Wolff is in the movie. (I'm just trying to think of some pros.) He's a part of one sequence that is quite funny where Ben is being interviewed for his position and almost none of the questions apply to him. But that was at the beginning of the movie; when it was a good movie with fun and quirky potential. It sure did all fall down fast. And the charming appeal of the beginning only made its speedy and uninspired decline all the more disappointing.
In this chick flick by Nancy Meyers, the writer and director of one of my favorite rom-coms, Robert De Niro is Ben, a recently retired widower who gets a job as an intern for a up-and-coming online clothing store run by Jules (Anne Hathaway), a young and inexperienced but dedicated businesswoman.
 |
| ... Who rides he bike through the workplace to save time. Cute, but those poor people who have to run after her! |
Since I liked The Holiday so much, I thought this would certainly be worth a look, considering the nice cast, and the quirky trailer that promised a lighthearted good time. And as it started out it delivered on those promises. The setting in the open floor-space of the business gave everything a breezy feel, so there's a comfortable flow, and a few neat quirks to make it all memorable. It was like a happier, more modern The Devil Wears Prada. Anne Hathaway comes across as a good boss; friendly and kind, if also a perfectionist and not extremely personable. Robert De Niro's Ben is an unfailing optimist and a very classy gentleman, and he pulls off the adorable-old-man vibe perfectly.
I thought that I'd mirror the movie with this review. I started out with some promise and a few positives that seem to be leading in the right direction, but now I'm going to make you wonder how good this review might actually be. That's what the movie did next. As Jules doesn't warm to Ben, things start to stagnate. The super-positive work environment sometimes comes across as insincere; I would feel unnerved like something sinister was going on, or would be very aware that I was watching a movie. We find out that Jules has a family, which seems like an odd rabbit trail. I started liking the supporting characters more than the leads. Then, Ben wins Jules' approval and things appear to head back in the original direction.
 |
| Yay felonies! Or is it a misdemeanor? Either way, yay! |
That's when the robbery takes place. Sure, in the movie it's just breaking and entering to delete an accidentally sent email, but it sure did feel like a robbery to me. Suddenly the movie's relaxed charm was gone and replaced by unfunny situational comedy that served no other purpose than to extend the run time. In one scene this film went from cute-little-flick to tonally confusing and borderline disaster. But don't worry, it doesn't end there...
It gets much worse! After the original airy tone was discarded, a new one was quickly set in its place. Fortunately, it wasn't the dumb comic one you might expect considering the scene that brought on the change. No, it was actually what I'd call a haphazard melodrama. Either there was not enough girl power in the character of Jules, a woman who built up her own company from nothing with dedication, style, and grace... or too much. I'm not really sure. Which is it when you take a confident businesswoman (who's fair to her employees and so hands-on that she gives out her cell number to clients in case they have problems) and turn her into a weepy mess of indecision and neediness? What is the goal here?
 |
| Her face is my reaction to all that. Followed by an eye roll and a face-palm after what happens next. |
Eventually, all this movie wants to do is preach to us about feminism, and sexism, and gender roles and things like that. I have my own opinions on those subjects, but no matter what perspective I look at it from, it's not good on a storytelling level. It's not entertaining or compelling here. Jules' home life falls apart because she spends every waking hour working, and then her husband Matt (Anders Holm) "makes a stupid mistake" and cheats on her. Whoops! This very efficiently turns him into that character that typically the female lead is dating at the beginning of the rom-com and eventually is happily rid of, except his speech about how he'll do better actually works. She forgives him, but she continues to work just as much, so everything's hunky-dory, but nothing has changed.
The message the film brings to this is that it wasn't Jules' fault that Matt cheated, which of course is true; so obviously true to me, that I thought it was odd and unnecessary how big a point they made out of it. However, just because Jules' constant absence isn't a free pass or even a bad excuse to cheat doesn't mean that it was okay for her to be such a workaholic, and it's presented that it was. Seriously, in every movie where a man is never home and obsessed with work he's invariably put in a bad light and either is a flawed character that must change, or is an actual villain -- and those morals ring true. Are we really supposed to accept that it's fine that Jules values her job over her family?
 |
| I didn't want to get into the politics, but I guess I just did. Oh well. |
Back to criticizing the entertainment aspects: Around when the political agenda is heating up is when the entertainment takes the backseat. There's very little comedy left, and everything melts into a puddle of tears -- and unconvincing, unmoving ones at that. Sad characters drag the movie down. Drama appears out of nowhere and tries to pull the plot in awkward directions. Jules' character arc set up at the beginning is abandoned for a cheap, flimsy one, and the problem set up at the beginning of the company needing a CEO is suddenly not nearly so urgent and is dismissed with a wave of the hand. Ben also loses a lot of interest, but does remain the film's most consistent and best character throughout. Other characters are completely forgotten, like Becky (Christina Scherer) who feels undermined and underused, and her suitor (Adam Devine) who's trying to get back into her good graces.
Nat Wolff is in the movie. (I'm just trying to think of some pros.) He's a part of one sequence that is quite funny where Ben is being interviewed for his position and almost none of the questions apply to him. But that was at the beginning of the movie; when it was a good movie with fun and quirky potential. It sure did all fall down fast. And the charming appeal of the beginning only made its speedy and uninspired decline all the more disappointing.
Tuesday, September 1, 2015
Upcoming Movie Roundup - September
August releases for me sadly saw no movies worth the theater trip after the embarrassingly giant flop of Fantastic Four (or Fant4stic) that completely ruined my interest in seeing it, and The Man From U.N.C.L.E. being pretty tempting, (I'll certainly see it on DVD!) but not quite as tempting as a second viewing of Mission: Impossible Rogue Nation (review), which is the best movie of the year (so far) and %100 the best movie of the summer!
September has a nice little bit of varying interest, but for me, if the one movie I'm really excited for turns out right, it'll easily overshadow the others.
Have you seen Rogue Nation yet? Cause you need to. And which movies of September have your interest?
Before We Go
Sept. 4th (limited); PG-13
Two strangers meet and fall in love while staying up all night and wandering around New York City in this romantic dramady directed by and starring Chris Evans with Alice Eve. This movie seems like it would be a no-brainer for any girl having a hard time waiting for Captain America: Civil War to come around. I fall into that category, by the way. I hesitate to be too interested in this though, because of the few but unanimously negative reviews currently up on RT. Rom-coms very rarely get great scores, but I worry that this one might be worse than normal. All the same, I'll be keeping an eye on it, and will very likely be watching it as a rental someday. -- After writing that, I actually found this movie on Demand for rental and watched it. I'll review it later, but for now lets just say that when more reviews come in, a significant number should be significantly more positive.
Black Mass
Sept. 18th; R
This one's more a case of me really liking the cast than the idea of the movie itself. We have Johnny Depp going unrecognizable again with the prosthetics, creepy blue eyes and the terrible comb-back as the real-life super criminal Whitey Bulger. Bendect Cumberbatch plays his brother who was a senator, and Joel Edgerton is the FBI agent that gets in way too deep with him. There's also Corey Stoll, Kevin Bacon, Peter Sarsgaard, and Adam Scott. But if it weren't for the cast I would have no interest at all in this real-life crime story, even if it does turn out to be as well-made as it wants us to believe it will be.
Sicario
Sept. 18th (limited); R
This one is very similar to the one above. The cast list is smaller -- Emily Blunt, Josh Brolin and Benicio Del Toro -- but very interesting, and the plot seems only to be the carrier of the performances. Though this one looks heavier on the action, and isn't based on a true story. Emily Blunt is the main source of interest, and as awesome as she is, it may not be enough to put this one up on my list.
Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials
Sept. 18th; PG-13
This is my must-see of the month. What kind of reviews it gets doesn't really factor in here, because the first Maze Runner movie was great, but got middling reviews. So I don't trust critics to not give this movie bad score just because they feel that the movie is unnecessary -- being a dystopian movie that isn't a Hunger Games movie. I like these stories a lot, and as far as I can tell, this film looks to be even better than the first film, and even better than it's source book. Everyone's here -- Dylan O'Brien, Thomas Brodie-Sangster, Ki Hong Lee, Kaya Scodelario, and even some guys who had bit-parts in the last film. Then there's the addition of a few important girls, and Jacob Lofland (of Mud) as the new guy. It looks like there will be some changes from the book, mainly ones that increase action level without diverting from the main plot line -- which would be ideal, and therefore is what I'm expecting. It's an exciting month for the Maze Runner fans!
The Intern
Sept. 25th; PG-13
This one just oozes cuteness. An old, retired man gets a job as an intern at a young and hip company, and of course amusing situations and witty banter follows. Robert De Nero stars with Anne Hathaway, and a few familiar names supporting. This has the feel of a good movie that will easily charm and amuse, and hopefully it lives up to that impression!
September has a nice little bit of varying interest, but for me, if the one movie I'm really excited for turns out right, it'll easily overshadow the others.
Have you seen Rogue Nation yet? Cause you need to. And which movies of September have your interest?
Before We Go
Sept. 4th (limited); PG-13
Two strangers meet and fall in love while staying up all night and wandering around New York City in this romantic dramady directed by and starring Chris Evans with Alice Eve. This movie seems like it would be a no-brainer for any girl having a hard time waiting for Captain America: Civil War to come around. I fall into that category, by the way. I hesitate to be too interested in this though, because of the few but unanimously negative reviews currently up on RT. Rom-coms very rarely get great scores, but I worry that this one might be worse than normal. All the same, I'll be keeping an eye on it, and will very likely be watching it as a rental someday. -- After writing that, I actually found this movie on Demand for rental and watched it. I'll review it later, but for now lets just say that when more reviews come in, a significant number should be significantly more positive.
Black Mass
Sept. 18th; R
This one's more a case of me really liking the cast than the idea of the movie itself. We have Johnny Depp going unrecognizable again with the prosthetics, creepy blue eyes and the terrible comb-back as the real-life super criminal Whitey Bulger. Bendect Cumberbatch plays his brother who was a senator, and Joel Edgerton is the FBI agent that gets in way too deep with him. There's also Corey Stoll, Kevin Bacon, Peter Sarsgaard, and Adam Scott. But if it weren't for the cast I would have no interest at all in this real-life crime story, even if it does turn out to be as well-made as it wants us to believe it will be.
Sicario
Sept. 18th (limited); R
This one is very similar to the one above. The cast list is smaller -- Emily Blunt, Josh Brolin and Benicio Del Toro -- but very interesting, and the plot seems only to be the carrier of the performances. Though this one looks heavier on the action, and isn't based on a true story. Emily Blunt is the main source of interest, and as awesome as she is, it may not be enough to put this one up on my list.
Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials
Sept. 18th; PG-13
This is my must-see of the month. What kind of reviews it gets doesn't really factor in here, because the first Maze Runner movie was great, but got middling reviews. So I don't trust critics to not give this movie bad score just because they feel that the movie is unnecessary -- being a dystopian movie that isn't a Hunger Games movie. I like these stories a lot, and as far as I can tell, this film looks to be even better than the first film, and even better than it's source book. Everyone's here -- Dylan O'Brien, Thomas Brodie-Sangster, Ki Hong Lee, Kaya Scodelario, and even some guys who had bit-parts in the last film. Then there's the addition of a few important girls, and Jacob Lofland (of Mud) as the new guy. It looks like there will be some changes from the book, mainly ones that increase action level without diverting from the main plot line -- which would be ideal, and therefore is what I'm expecting. It's an exciting month for the Maze Runner fans!
The Intern
Sept. 25th; PG-13
This one just oozes cuteness. An old, retired man gets a job as an intern at a young and hip company, and of course amusing situations and witty banter follows. Robert De Nero stars with Anne Hathaway, and a few familiar names supporting. This has the feel of a good movie that will easily charm and amuse, and hopefully it lives up to that impression!
Friday, June 28, 2013
Stardust
Sometimes it seems that the best, most original premises for stories can be summarized in a single question. For instance, the question, "what if we aren't alone in the universe?" has sparked countless alien movies, and then "what if aliens aren't evil?" sparked countless more. The more simple and unique the question, the more interesting and unique the story could be.
So take this one; "what if the stars gaze back?" Simple and unique to be sure, and also a bit quirky -- it would be right if its story was quirky too, It's imaginative, so a fantasy, with magic and sword-fighting, and flying pirates and witches. It might be a bit cheesy, but it would also be funny, exciting and sweet.
Stardust is all these things and more. Stars do gaze back, and what more, sometimes they accidentally fall. (Shooting stars!) One star named Yvaine (Claire Danes) is unceremoniously knocked from the sky by a large gemstone set in a necklace when the dying king of the realm of Stormhold sends it flying into the night, telling his three sons that one must retrieve it to claim the throne. As the star falls, three sister witches see it, and one goes out to find it, so they can consume the heart and be young again.
In 1800's England, in a small village called Wall (so named for a mysterious wall on its border), a boy named Tristan (Charlie Cox) is trying to win the hand of his beloved, the beauty of the town, Victoria (Sienna Miller). They see the star falling, and make an agreement; if Tristan can bring the star back to Victoria by her birthday in one week, she will marry him; if not, she'll marry that pompous rich fellow Humphrey (Henry Cavill, and almost totally, hilariously, unrecognizable). Tristan is determined to succeed, but no one ever crosses The Wall. Once that little hurdle is jumped there's an unexpected problem; Tristan had no idea the star would be... a woman. And she's not too keen a being a birthday gift.
If there is one movie that just screams "high-flying, full-throttle, incredibly fun fantasy adventure" it would be this movie. The story, based on a novel by Neil Gaiman, is wonderfully complex for a lighthearted fantasy, with basically three plot lines running simultaneously, and intersecting every now and then. Tristan and Yvaine, on a time limit, hurrying towards the wall, the witch Lamia, Michelle Pfeiffer, growing older and uglier the more magic she uses, in pursuit of the stars heart, and the youngest prince, Septimus, Mark Strong, a likable bad guy if there ever was one, in pursuit of her necklace. There's also a pirate with a fearsome reputation, Robert De Niro being unpredictable, a kidnapped princess, ghosts for comic relief, and what fairy tale would be complete without a unicorn?
Acting wise there's nothing special, in spite of the all-star cast, which lesser-known Charlie Cox as the unlikely, awkward hero holds up against very well. Claire Danes' sarcastic heavenly being is a little strange at first, but she grows on you. The two together don't click as well as they should, which is slightly disappointing, especially when I realized that a sweet moment between girl and mouse was just as romantic as a sweet moment between girl and boy. Still, I hardly noticed that enough to care; there's so much more to occupy your thoughts.
The quirky plot unfolds briskly and smoothly from beginning to end. Aided by active, sweeping cinematography moving from place to place and scene to scene seamlessly, tying everything together with style. It also showcases some beautiful, middle-earth-like locations, and some epic, magical sets. The humor is hit and miss, and as the rating says, some of it is mildly rude, but it is usually at least mildly amusing, and sometimes it hits and is downright funny. The cheesy-ness is sometimes laughable as well, but in a purposeful way. (Self-deprecating humor makes everyone like you!) The action is swashbuckling at times and magic-y at times, and is good and exciting all the time.
Stardust is the practically the definition of it genre. Yet I consider it to be extremely original. It succeeds in telling a fun adventure story and in making it funny, romantic and fantastic. It's very light fare -- never going deeper than about, oh, two inches, but it lightheartedness also makes it endearing... and cheesy. Still it has its "serious" moments and its fantasy action and violence. It may go overboard, but it does it whole-heartedly, making you want to join in on the craziness, the fun, the giddy enthusiasm. And with a unique, memorable story is told this well, I have nothing else to say except jump on in.
So take this one; "what if the stars gaze back?" Simple and unique to be sure, and also a bit quirky -- it would be right if its story was quirky too, It's imaginative, so a fantasy, with magic and sword-fighting, and flying pirates and witches. It might be a bit cheesy, but it would also be funny, exciting and sweet.
Stardust is all these things and more. Stars do gaze back, and what more, sometimes they accidentally fall. (Shooting stars!) One star named Yvaine (Claire Danes) is unceremoniously knocked from the sky by a large gemstone set in a necklace when the dying king of the realm of Stormhold sends it flying into the night, telling his three sons that one must retrieve it to claim the throne. As the star falls, three sister witches see it, and one goes out to find it, so they can consume the heart and be young again.
 |
| "A toast! To the new king of Stormhold... whichever of you fine fellows it may be." |
In 1800's England, in a small village called Wall (so named for a mysterious wall on its border), a boy named Tristan (Charlie Cox) is trying to win the hand of his beloved, the beauty of the town, Victoria (Sienna Miller). They see the star falling, and make an agreement; if Tristan can bring the star back to Victoria by her birthday in one week, she will marry him; if not, she'll marry that pompous rich fellow Humphrey (Henry Cavill, and almost totally, hilariously, unrecognizable). Tristan is determined to succeed, but no one ever crosses The Wall. Once that little hurdle is jumped there's an unexpected problem; Tristan had no idea the star would be... a woman. And she's not too keen a being a birthday gift.
 |
| Obviously, she needs some convincing. Maybe bribery. |
If there is one movie that just screams "high-flying, full-throttle, incredibly fun fantasy adventure" it would be this movie. The story, based on a novel by Neil Gaiman, is wonderfully complex for a lighthearted fantasy, with basically three plot lines running simultaneously, and intersecting every now and then. Tristan and Yvaine, on a time limit, hurrying towards the wall, the witch Lamia, Michelle Pfeiffer, growing older and uglier the more magic she uses, in pursuit of the stars heart, and the youngest prince, Septimus, Mark Strong, a likable bad guy if there ever was one, in pursuit of her necklace. There's also a pirate with a fearsome reputation, Robert De Niro being unpredictable, a kidnapped princess, ghosts for comic relief, and what fairy tale would be complete without a unicorn?
 |
| Oh no! Not... unicorns!! Just kidding, everyone knows unicorns are nice! |
Acting wise there's nothing special, in spite of the all-star cast, which lesser-known Charlie Cox as the unlikely, awkward hero holds up against very well. Claire Danes' sarcastic heavenly being is a little strange at first, but she grows on you. The two together don't click as well as they should, which is slightly disappointing, especially when I realized that a sweet moment between girl and mouse was just as romantic as a sweet moment between girl and boy. Still, I hardly noticed that enough to care; there's so much more to occupy your thoughts.
 |
| A star learns to waltz... |
The quirky plot unfolds briskly and smoothly from beginning to end. Aided by active, sweeping cinematography moving from place to place and scene to scene seamlessly, tying everything together with style. It also showcases some beautiful, middle-earth-like locations, and some epic, magical sets. The humor is hit and miss, and as the rating says, some of it is mildly rude, but it is usually at least mildly amusing, and sometimes it hits and is downright funny. The cheesy-ness is sometimes laughable as well, but in a purposeful way. (Self-deprecating humor makes everyone like you!) The action is swashbuckling at times and magic-y at times, and is good and exciting all the time.
 |
| Yikes. |
Stardust is the practically the definition of it genre. Yet I consider it to be extremely original. It succeeds in telling a fun adventure story and in making it funny, romantic and fantastic. It's very light fare -- never going deeper than about, oh, two inches, but it lightheartedness also makes it endearing... and cheesy. Still it has its "serious" moments and its fantasy action and violence. It may go overboard, but it does it whole-heartedly, making you want to join in on the craziness, the fun, the giddy enthusiasm. And with a unique, memorable story is told this well, I have nothing else to say except jump on in.
 |
| Number ten! |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)