Upcoming Movie Roundup - February

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

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

What looks good to you this month?


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




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




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




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




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




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




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

Upcoming Movie Roundup - July

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

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


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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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

Pride & Prejudice (2005)

"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a rich man in possession of a large fortune must be in want of a wife."

So begins Jane Austen's classic novel, Pride and Prejudice. What is it about? If you said it was a romance about a proud man and a prejudiced woman you wouldn't be wrong... just missing out on a few points. If you said that, I would assume that you had only watched this 2005 version of Pride and Prejudice, and liked it. And while I really can't say you're "wrong" for liking it, I can say, as before, you would be missing out.

But today I am not here to tell you about all the wonderful things you are missing if I say "Elizabeth Bennet" and you see Keira Knightley. I'm simply going to review, analyze and nit-pick this film until I am satisfied, and hope that the end result gives you a fair idea of what exactly I think of it. I think you may have a fair idea already.

If not, however, I hope that trailer set it a bit straighter for you. Yes, a deep-voiced announcer said "in a era" at the beginning. I can hardly believe it myself. But my favorite part has to be how they try to make you think Miss Darcy is Miss De Bourgh. Ha.

This film starts out very well. Beautiful cinematography paired with some equally fine music goes on pleasantly for a good while, and all is well until Knightley's poor posture and odd hair makes a bold appearance and ruins the serenity. And the nagging feeling of there being something terribly wrong never goes away. Five minutes in I get a horrible desperate feeling that the movie is going by way too fast.

Savor moments that look like this.

I'm afraid that there is very little middle ground here for me. I either think a part is surprisingly good, or intolerably bad -- and I really mean intolerably. Director Joe "Anything-But" Wright makes a large number of changes and additions. Some are blatantly disrespectful of Austen's novel, and appear to have only been made for the sole purpose of making his film obviously different from the source. Some are just plain stupid, and ALL are unnecessary.

An example, because I can't resist: After Mr. Darcy proposes to Lizzy the first time... in the rain... and they've just finished insulting each other, he steps in closer... and they nearly kiss. (Excuse me for moment whilst I give back my breakfast.) I will not insult anyone's intelligence by explaining why that is... is... inconceivably ridiculous. If you can't understand, go read the book.

You've GOT to be kidding me.

Joe Wright obviously has zero respect for Jane Austen. I could go on with this for hours, but I would only succeed in annoying myself. And, unfortunately, I have to give him some good credits too. Cinematography is his forte -- and his takes liberties in the story to show case it -- but if I judge it without bias, I can honestly say it's beautiful. And while he totally messed up casting the two leads (and skinny model and a "hunk") the supporting cast is impressive and very interesting.

Pictured from right to left: One girl soon to be famous, one amazing actress before she was famous, one girl I would not miss if she quit acting, one of the most beautiful women in the world, and one girl who is not actually ugly at all.

Fun facts time! Jena Malone has been cast as Johanna Mason in Catching Fire, which will probably get her a lot of attention. This was Carey Mulligan's first movie, and has since catapulted herself into fame, and I'm confident she will continue to grow rapidly. And do you recognize Mary? Talulah Riley may not be a very big actress, but I doubt she escaped your notice in Inception.

Talulah Riley played a blonde, played by Eames, played by Tom Hardy. A role within a role within a role!

These three girls barely got enough screen time to insure that fans would be able to tell them apart, but there are some really good and funny details to their characters that I love to see. Kitty (Mulligan) eying Mr. Wickham after he's married to Lydia; Mary, through expression, making it obvious that she would have married Mr. Collins; and Lydia's (Malone) "war of the wine glass" with Lizzy. (Inaccurate, but funny)

Rosamund Pike got a fair amount of screen time, and made the most of it by being lovely and sweet, and a very good Jane. Her suitor, Mr. Bingley, played by Simon Woods, was unfortunately ruined by script and direction. His best scene, and the only one where he doesn't act awkward or stupid, was apparently improvised. To really enjoy the actor, I recommend watching Cranford.

Another fun fact: The two actors dated before this movie. Maybe that explains Bingley's awkwardness.

I shouldn't put it off any longer. Lizzy and Darcy -- Keira Knightley and Matthew MacFadyen -- the foundation of the story and therefore, the reason I don't like this version. I suppose it's a credit to their acting... that they're so awful... they obviously did exactly what Wright wanted them to do.

Look at them -- stopped in the middle of the set to stare each other down! Such passion.

All the wonderful complexities of these characters don't even come close to making an appearance. The only thing MacFadyen has going for him is his ability to look serious and proud, and his deep voice; Knightley's is her ability to say all the old-fashioned lines and make them (more or less) sound like they come from her head. Neither look the part, but Knightley is by far the worst of the two. She's way to skinny, way too modern and way too glamorous -- which makes her much better suited for the roles she later took in Wright films, in Atonement and Anna Karenina. (Two movie better suited to his style as well, I believe.)

I always smile in this scene, when Darcy says "you are conscious that your figures appear to best advantage when walking" because Elizabeth's figure is so pathetic compared to Miss Bingley's. The moment takes on a whole new meaning!

Speaking of Miss Bingley, I've decided that she is my favorite part of the film. So fashionable, so haughty, so jealous, and her character is not only played well by the lovely Kelly Reilly, but played as it should be. Right, not Wright. Oh, and the way she holds her mouth as they leave Netherfield is perfection.


Obviously, the director is the reason I don't like/respect/acknowledge this film as a Jane Austen adaptation. But I'm conflicted, because this is a beautifully shot film, that has some great and some practically brilliant intricacies and moments -- also the directors work. So what can I say, but that some of this movie makes me sick, and some makes me laugh out loud? I wish I could say one or the other -- be free to hate or love this movie in peace -- but, sadly, I cannot.

Now I will attempt to give a star rating to this confusing, conflicting film. It boils down to this: as a adaptation of Austen's novel, it's inaccuracies, and disrespectful changes, 1 star would be generous; disregarding all that, just as a film, I could give it 4 with no problem. So here is my compromise...

-- 3 stars.

Review #1 of this challenge!