Don't mind the title; this movie is more pure than it sounds, I promise.
For fifteen years Annie (Rose Byrne) has put up with her boyfriend Duncan's (Chris O'Dowd) obsession with American rock star Tucker Crowe, who disappeared after releasing his first hit album, Juliet, in the 90's. Juliet, Naked is a demo version of said album that finds its way into Duncan's hands. Partway to get revenge for an argument, and partway because she finds the demo album boring, and exploitative of the original's success, Annie posts a scathing review on Duncan's fan site. Later she gets an email saying that she hit the nail on the head... that's signed Tucker Crowe.
An almost You've Got Mail kind of premise but without all the waiting and the initial hating.
And yes, Tucker is played by Ethan Hawke. He and Annie bond over email, describing their disappointing lives; Annie keeping their exchanges secret from Duncan, and Tucker juggling a life full of strained relationships that involves three ex-wives and five children. But this is a rom-com so eventually, when Tucker's London-resident daughter Lizzie (Ayoola Smart) makes him a granddad, they take the opportunity to meet. Then other circumstances allow for an extended stay.
The movie takes care to make its protagonists likable despite the growth they need. For example, Annie never cheats on Duncan; and Tucker is determined to maintain a good relationship with his youngest son Jackson (Azhy Robertson). His last chance to not mess something up, he says. And Annie herself longs to have children, in a refreshingly un-progressive turn. Her dynamic with Jackson is almost as cute as her and Tucker. And maybe it's the British rom-com thing to do, but everything feels so down-to-earth and realistic, but not at all in a cynical, "real-world grit" kind of way. It's just relatable, normal, life things. Except becoming pen-pals with a famous person of course.
It's based on a novel, so maybe that's where it's unexpected depth without the weighty tone came from.
My favorite is when Annie and Tucker meet in real life. It's awkward, yet not painful to watch, cut short and not screaming with unnecessary sexual tension. They really do become friends first. And in the inevitable scene where Tucker discovers that the weird guy who runs that fan-site of speculative misinformation was her boyfriend, things don't escalate like some rom-coms might push them to. No misunderstandings, no jumping to wild and angry conclusions for the sake of drama; just a character-driven relationship between two unlikely people.
Even Duncan isn't left out. One of the movie's best moments is the instance of Duncan meeting Tucker and not recognizing him. Also O'Dowd is the movie's most consistently hilarious aspect, but isn't tossed out once his usefulness to the plot is fulfilled. He even gets a few moments of poignancy, and I really liked what he had to say about art not being for the artist but for the consumer. Rose Byrne is as charming as ever, hitting comedy and drama equally well. And Ethan Hawke, always excellent, doesn't phone in because he's in a rom-com, and (with help from the script) turns his character into something fascinating and nuanced that you wouldn't expect.
And he sings. They wrote songs for the Juliet album which we hear, and he sings Waterloo Sunset live. Like, I probably should have led with that, right? (there's even a soundtrack available!)
The rom-com genre may be dead, but Juliet, Naked makes itself relevant and worthy -- by being devoted to its characters beyond the romance that can be fabricated between them; by effortlessly avoiding dead pitfalls of the genre; by not relying on comic shortcuts and cliches; and by still appealing to rom-com sensibilities by being sweet and romantic and leaving you happy and satisfied in the end. For my money they could have sold the ending even more, but they can't resist adding a little extra as the credits roll that adds extra satisfaction and one more laugh to the more abrupt indie-style end.
Don't get distracted by the odd title. Juliet, Naked is more than meets the eye.
Last month I saw my favorite movie of the year (so far -- I'll keep you posted) and it was Lean on Pete. I knew that movie was going to be something special. I know it won't effect everyone so well and in the same way, but objectively it is a very well made, well acted, and beautifully shot film. Here's my review.
July was a pretty great month! I got to see Incredibles 2, Ant-Man and the Wasp, and Mission: Impossible - Fallout in the theater. Fallout was the best (spoiler-free review!) and I was pleasantly surprised at how much I enjoyed Incredibles 2! (Review!) Ant-Man wasn't the most irritating Marvel movie I've seen by a long shot, but it didn't have much good going for it either. Pretty forgettable already. (Review.)
August has a ton of movies, but nothing that I'm dead-set on going to the theater for. Seeing M:I again seems to be currently at the top of my priorities, but there definitely are some movies here that I will want to see. It's just a matter of when. What looks good to you this month??
So. Many. Trailers! Let's go:
Christopher Robin
Aug 3rd; PG
Every time I see something new-that's-not-really-new coming from Disney I get that cynical feeling going again. This is probably the best way to try and bank off my childhood -- and they even got Ewan McGregor in there for grown-up me -- but this trailer is the kind of cute and sweet that usually translates to just another passable Disney production with lots of nostalgia and not much of anything else.
The Darkest Minds
Aug 3rd; PG-13 The Hunger Games meets X-Men... or something. When I first saw this trailer I genuinely confused it with The Gifted. But this does look better than that was. I think the genre of YA revolution-dystopia is all-but dead, but appears to have taken a shift into the superhero realm with this. It still feels a little outdated, but I'll watch it anyway. Because... you gotta. And Rue is the lead -- I liked her.
The Meg
Aug 10th; PG-13
I know this is supposed to be completely overblown and ridiculous, and not supposed to be taken seriously, so I shouldn't have any issues with it, as it's just minding it's own business, being crazy silly fun summer fare, but I'm still annoyed -- because I made my brothers watch Jaws and they hated it, but they do want to see this. I want to see this too... okay, fine... but Jaws will always and forever rule, and this movie couldn't exist without it. I feel like Back to the Future Part II was right after all, because this is essentially Jaws 24, or whatever. But yes giant shark Jason Statham let's go.
BlacKkKlansman
Aug 10th; R
This will either be a brilliant movie, or only a movie that everyone says is brilliant. If the first, it will be a super stylish and fun undercover action movie that doesn't forget that it's marketing itself as a comedy. A solid and natural message would be of unity. If the second, it'll probably forget to be funny and come across instead as oddly angry and far too preachy, story suffering as a result. I hope it's more like the first because I'd love to watch that.
A Prayer Before Dawn
Aug 10th(limited); R
Some Peaky Blinders spoilers means I want to watch this movie. A24's latest. They seem to know what they're doing and they definitely know how to put together a trailer. It is based on a true story, but seems like a pretty remarkable story. Still there are pitfalls there. I'm not a big boxing movie fan and I'm not a big prison movie fan, but I'd definitely like to see this someday.
Summer of '84
Aug 10th; NR Rear Window with 80's kids? I'm there. I'm sure they're trying to bank off the success of Stranger Things and IT, but it is nice that they seem to have their own idea with the non-supernatural serial killer. Maybe this movie won't be a smash hit that everyone will love, but it sure does seem to be made with me in mind, and I that's all I care about. Looking forward to this one!
Crazy Rich Asians
Aug 15th; PG-13
I don't know, but this looks extremely enjoyable and I want to watch it. The big, non-indie rom-com of the month. Based on a book which is a great sign because rom-coms tend to have tired out plot lines but books need more going for them to be popular. I get a feeling this one will be a hit. Who doesn't like comedies about rich families? And the presentation of a culture I'm unfamiliar with is appealing to me, too.
Alpha
Aug 17th; PG-13
This doesn't look like a good movie, and the trailer appears to have given away the whole story, but I don't really care and I want to see it anyway. It's release date was pushed back and then brought back a little, and that doesn't bode well at all paired with the lackluster trailers featuring unconvincing CGI and a basic story. It's got a cute wolf though, and Kodi Smit-McPhee is has always been worth watching in the past. And this one's set WAY in the past!
Billionaire Boys Club
Aug 17th; R
Has it been long enough that everyone's forgotten about Kevin Spacey now? At any rate he definitely shouldn't prevent a film's release that so many other people worked hard on, even if it doesn't look as good as I hoped it would when I saw that Taron Egerton and Ansel Elgort were starring in a movie together. (The Unusual Names Boys Club!) The movie kind of looks like a mess. With a title like that it needs a trailer with a lot more style to secure my interest -- especially when those guy's best movies (Baby Driver and Kingsman) are so wonderfully high in the style category.
The Little Mermaid
Aug 17th; PG
High King Peter the Magnificent and the elf-princess Amberle star in a terrible kids romance fantasy about mermaids. The trailer gave the whole movie away. Ugh. Yet, for some reason, I know that I will watch it the moment it becomes free to watch. Help me.
Juliet, Naked
Aug 17th(limited); NR
Haha, aw. Sometimes you need a traditional little rom-com, and I seriously would watch this movie right now if I could, because I think I could use one. Rose Byrne is great, Ethan Hawke is great, Chris O'Dowd is great... the movie doesn't need to be particularly fresh or outstandingly exceptional or anything but if it delivers what it promises here, I bet it'll be great too.
Papillon
Aug 24th(limited); R
Like the original, I bet I'll keep seeing it around but never bother to actually watch it. Especially if the consensus is that the original's better because then I might feel the need to watch that one first. I do like Rami Malek though. And I always say I don't like Charlie Hunnam, but that's probably mostly leftover irritation over his version of Nicholas Nickleby. He doesn't bother me enough to make me avoid him. Maybe since this is a true story I should read about what happens and see if that will spark interest.
Destination Wedding
Aug 31st; R
And THIS is a rom-com for the cynical me who doesn't want to see a cute little family movie in which Ewan McGregor and Winnie the Pooh take long walks through the woods together. Honestly, I feel like Winona Ryder and Keanu Reeves should have been in a movie together by now. Have they? I can't think of one. Anyway, this makes me laugh, and I would like to see more.
The Little Stranger
Aug 31st; R
Aw, man. I'm going to have to watch this, aren't I? I don't know what it is about movies like this. House-related horror... maybe something supernatural is going on, maybe not... scary children... set in a period... attempts to be refined instead of gory... I love it and hate it at the same time. Or I like the idea maybe. I've yet to see it play out satisfactorily yet I'm always still intrigued. This one has a great cast which is what usually tips me over the edge: Domhnall Gleeson, Ruth Wilson, Will Poulter, and other familiar British faces.
Kin
Aug 31st; PG-13
Heck yes. The mere fact that they advertise as by the producers of Stranger Things means that they want to attract that fanbase. And yes, I know The Darkest Minds said that too, but this doesn't look like a teenage X-Men, but more like something original though still relatively family friendly. And look at Franco actually in a role that's suited to him! And look at the neon lighting usage! And how it's all about family. Yep, I'm on board! Dennis Quaid, Zoe Kravitz, Jack Reynor, and I don't think I've seen the main kid in anything before.
Blood Fest
Aug 31st; NR
Eh, on the fence here. With horror comedies the comedy needs to be really on point to get me, and from the trailer it doesn't look super promising. However, it does have Zachary Levi, Peter Parker's friend Ned, and a very fun premise going for it, so I may have to wait and see.
Some spoilers... though there's not much to spoil.
I've finally had to admit to myself that I'm just not a fan of the rebooted X-Men franchise. It seems crazy. How could I not like a superhero franchise? That has so many favorite actors in it no less? I look at that cast of the new X-Men films -- particularly this one -- and think there's no way I could possibly not love the movie they all inhabit. Not to mention they all play such cool characters. Yet, here I am again, underwhelmed after an X-Men movie -- and this one more so than ever.
"What does this button do?" "That makes the movie more interesting. Never push that button Hank."
This time Oscar Isaac steps up to the plate as the villain: Apocalypse, an ancient, powerful being -- the original mutant, who had been slumbering for the past couple thousand years, but has now been awakened. (Side point: was it actually Rose Byrne's fault he woke up? Cause those men were doing the chanting, but it seemed like to me it only worked because she forgot to close the door and sunlight got in. Like, they've been going down there and chanting daily for hundreds of years, and this is the first time someone accidentally left the door open? Anyway...) Apocalypse doesn't exactly like how earth has changed since he ruled it and means to do some spring cleansing before he takes office.
The most disappointing aspect of this film might actually be that Oscar Isaac is unrecognizable in his role. And I get that in his normal state he doesn't exactly exude the kind of power and menace a character called Apocalypse would require, but seriously, covering his face in prosthetics and digitally changing his voice was not the answer. Cast someone else. Or just let him act. I spent the whole movie trying to recognize him (knowing that it was him!) and it only came through in a brief glimmer one time -- in his voice. He didn't even get to do any acting; he just delivered a bunch of speeches in a deep, digitally altered dramatic voice. Anyone could have done it! The final blow was of course that he didn't have the superpower to grow into a giant like the trailer implied. Turns out the most powerful mutant ever needs others to do everything for him, and can't take on more than one person at a time in a fight.
The only thing he really has is good persuasive skills, to convince people to work for him.
Out of all three of the rebooted X-Men films, this one is oddly the least epic and on the smallest scale. That really surprised me. It's called Apocalypse; shouldn't the scale be, I don't know, apocalyptic? The final battle took place within about a square block -- making the Avengers and Superman jealous I'm sure -- and was so sadly static. It bothers me when superheroes destroy entire cities carelessly, but at least other films do a lot of moving around to produce the destruction. Here, we have the worst of both worlds, with Erik just sitting there and whoom -- everything's destroyed. Then they just kick back and have a battle that would have done very little damage otherwise.
That's the brunt of my complaining. Then there's a few things I'm more neutral to, and a few things I liked. On the neutral front come Charles and Erik. They're the main characters, but they never have interested me much as such. I like Michael Fassbender and I like what was done with the character of Charles under James McAvoy in this film, but it really seems like they're only the main characters because Hugh Jackman only gets a cameo. X-Men films are best when they're led by Wolverine, and that's a fact. So the movie spends a lot of time focusing on Charles and Erik, doing the same things they've always done, and while it's not exactly bad, (except for that super unlucky accident that started Erik up on his "villain or no?" arc yet again -- that earned a hearty "come on!" from me) it's not exactly compelling to me either.
You know, now that the timeline has been changed, you don't need to contrive reasons for Erik to be a bad guy...
What I did find compelling was, amazingly, one of the things I was most looking forward to. That is, Tye Sheridan playing Scott/Cyclops and Kodi Smit-McPhee playing Kurt/Nightcrawler. I was looking forward to them because they're talented actors and since I've already enjoyed the older versions of the characters, I thought it would be neat to see them take the parts. I underestimated how good this aspect would actually be. Firstly, Tye Sheridan was perfect casting for Scott. I actually saw James Marsden in him, like he could actually grow up into him. Characterization could have used so much more, but at least that's a testament to how much potential he had.
And Kurt was even better. He got a small arc, but it was complete and interesting. And seriously, the kid is so charming. He was by far the funniest character (even though Quicksilver was there) and had that adorable naivete and a tragic but unexploited backstory. Right now I just wish this had been like a teen comedy where Scott, Kurt, Jean, and friends do typical high school things with a super-powered twist and then in the end have to go save the day like they do (in the best part of the movie I might add) and that's it. I would watch the heck out of that movie!
The trio. Why couldn't they be the movie's main characters?
I should mention while I'm on the subject that Sophie Turner as Jean Grey is very good too. I've never felt the biggest connection with the character, but this version of her is sympathetic and as good as ever. Also Evan Peters as Quicksilver; the problem of his being too powerful to participate in the climax they cut off at the pass, but then they had to backtrack a little, because they didn't want him to actually tell Erik he's his son? Whatever. I still like the characterization, but his big scene felt very much like "Quicksilver Saves the Day: The Sequel." It was bigger, and longer, but by no means better.
It's a strange day when there's a movie starring Jennifer Lawrence and Nicholas Hoult and I spend all my time talking about everyone else, but as cool as these two are, they spend this movie treading water so there's not much to say. It's also pretty sad that the politics of the X-Men movies is usually what annoys me, yet this one had next to none and I didn't like the film any better. My overall experience was just enjoying the characters as they came in small doses -- particularly the Scott/Jean/Kurt trio -- being mildly bored in between, and then being underwhelmed by the smallness of the ending. There wasn't a whole lot to hate, and neither was there a whole lot to love.
Quicksilver attempts to save everyone from the movie's wreckage. It's unclear whether he is successful.
Since I'm big on characters, the film manages to tip to the positive side. The plot in uninspired, and a lot of characters were only there because they could be, or because it is expected, but there was enough that was worthwhile to bring the rest of the film along with it. So I guess I'm not an X-Men fan, but right now, that's working out for me. I can still enjoy what I can out of the films, but I'm not invested enough to care when there's failings. The X-Men -- the characters and the talent that portrays them -- deserve better films than ones like this, but until they get them, I'll be taking them as I can for what they are.
Songs were redone, given a modern beat, and missing a few verses at best. I would say that at worst they were missing altogether, but now I'm thinking that at least the missing ones weren't butchered into a bunch of fluffy pop nothingness. Really, the worst of it was when the songs were almost unrecognizable for being changed so much, like my personal favorite, "Easy Street." I'm going to hold a funeral for that one later this week. And when the plot needed a song (and I use the word "needed" very loosely) whole new songs were made up to fit the bill. Those, while still terrible in the same way the rest of the songs were, at least didn't offend my sentimentality.
And I haven't even mentioned the singing yet! Auto-tuned into oblivion, but for some reason everyone sounded breathy. The speaking lines were clearer every time, immediately turned to wheezing the moment the peppy beat got going. There was as exception to this amazing phenomenon -- in no one. Okay, Jamie Foxx didn't get it as bad as others, and the girl playing Annie's smallest friend sounded good. She got to sing two short lines.
Yay! Dancing! And singing!
Then the plot was played with by the same talented artist (read: gleefully evil kid with a magnifying glass and an ant hill) who rewrote the music. I won't even get into it, because it could last for weeks. Let's just say that for the first quarter, things were changed to fit into the 21st century, and the rest was changed to fit the "Just For The Heck Of It" century. After that, there apparently was still some time to fill to meet the required just-under-two-hours-because-it's-a-musical-and-musicals-need-extra-time quota. About 20 minutes in fact -- or at least that's how long the filler of many montages of Annie having tons of fun with her new life as a rich kid felt.
If you feel the need to explain in your movie what a "hard-knock life" is, you probably shouldn't be titling your movie "Annie." But here we are anyway -- "Annie" for the new generation, complete with upbeat, revamped, auto-tuned songs, a modernly "relevant" political statement, and loads and loads of noise and color -- it has everything except the ingredients for a satisfying, fun, heartwarming musical.
