What do you get when you remake The Truman Show but update it for modern day by adding elements of Ready Player One, and a bit of the Groundhog Day concept, and make Ryan Reynolds the lead?
You get a summer movie that actually feels like a summer movie.
Here's a shocker: this movie isn't two hours ofReynolds running around in a videogame world making quippy jokes. There's like, a story. And stakes. Remember those? There are characters who have goals, and an antagonist who's in their way. And they're the good guys because their goals are moral, and the antagonist is the bad guy because his goals are immoral, and the story is written so that we'll root for the good guys and have a satisfying sense of resolution if they succeed.
"No duh, Sarah, that's how movies work." Yep. It's weird. I wish I could say I wasn't starstruck by a mere coherent plotline, but here we are. And I know it's not only me. "It's deeper than I expected" is a popular comment on this film. Why? Because it has real-world characters too, with visible character arcs? Because there's an NPC in a videogame who gains self-awareness and freewill and that makes us consider what human value he has? Not exactly mind-blowing stuff here. And yet, it is. Because movies have been without basic things like moral standards, thought, or storytelling coherence for so long that we forgot how essential they are. There's a romantic subplot that's resolved for more reason than "the movie is ending now," and it felt earth-shatteringly original.
Shawn Levy understands how to assemble a competent film. "Earth-shattering," he is not. Something else is up here.
While I appreciate that this movie returns to a certain filmmaking standard, that's not to say that it's automatically great. The spell only lasted during the runtime, and now I'm left to mull over how exceptionally sad it is that so little could feel like so much. Because sure, the movie feeds us what I've been craving, but in bites, not meal-sized portions. To say Free Guy puts in more effort than recent action-comedy flicks isn't saying anything, really. They have funny guy Ryan Reynolds at their disposal, and they let him do his thing. But too much so. More often it's more like they leave him—to ad-lib quips on top of normal scenes, instead of writing set-up and pay-off jokes for him to elevate. Most of the comedic scenes are not only unnecessary but totally humorless. (Hello Channing Tatum.)
They let Taika Waititi have fun too, and I liked hating the character. But did they think we wouldn't notice he was the bad guy unless they had him spell it out for us? "I love money, I want more money, I don't care about anything but money." We get it. A little subtlety wouldn't kill you, and would ring truer, even for an over-the-top character. And of course, they can't help but wedge in some political talking points, some that clash with the actual intent of the movie. I'd have cut 10-20 minutes from the runtime, mostly in cameos and people watching events from the real world. That got in the way. There are also three separate sequences that feel like the "final battle." One was expensive, one "funny," and one had narrative relevance. Guess which one I'd keep?
Even in action movies the last thing I care about is the action...
My favorite aspect was the real-people characters played by Jodie Comer and Joe Keery. They own the heart of the film, baby-sized as it is. Keery's relevance to the plot was especially a nice surprise. I was fully expecting him to be a side character meant for more jokes only. In fact, I wish there had been more real-life all around. Comer's character is even more essential on paper but doesn't feel it because we see her mostly in the game, where she lacks her real-world personality. We thought that Reynolds' star-power, the humor, and high concept actiony videogame fun was the point, but it's not, not really. It's dressing. Free Guy remembers that better than most, but not quite well enough.
I am not educated in Pokémon, so forgive me for the following. That's the thing about this movie though -- it trusts its audience to know, or to be able to pick up with minimal exposition, and that opens up a ton of space for expansive storytelling. Also, wise-cracking one-liners and fuzzy yellow adorableness!
And old-fashioned mystery!
In a city where humans and Pokémon live in equality, Tim (Justice Smith) gets the news that his estranged detective dad has died. When he goes to clean out his apartment, he finds a deer-stalker-wearing Pikachu, and is surprised to find that he can understand what he's saying. (I suppose it wouldn't occur to him to be surprised that he sounds like Ryan Reynolds.) Pikachu claims to be Tim's dad's Pokémon partner, and though he has amnesia he's almost certain that Tim's dad is still alive. They join forces (reluctantly on Tim's part, who used to be obsessed with Pokémon but now wants nothing to do with them) to track down the trail of clues in search of him.
Instantly you get an old detective noir vibe which pairs perfectly with the cyberpunk world. They lean into it more than is required, and as a noir fan I appreciated that. It's mostly present visually, with the apartment buildings and Venetian blinds and neon cityscapes, but there's also a hardboiled interrogation (through mime for a good laugh), dramatic plot twists, a secret laboratory, and shady characters. And an intrepid, spunky reporter girl (Kathryn Newton) who knows something sinister is going on. The plot is easy to follow and if you were inclined to think ahead you might figure out the destination fairly quickly, but I was simply too swept up in the story and fun atmosphere to even try and predict anything.
In cases like this it helps to be like a kid, oblivious to tropes and probable outcomes. It is a kid's movie after all. But it's also good nostalgia fodder for adults too, who grew up with the game. I didn't myself, and felt a warm welcome stepping into the Pokémon world for the first time. It's good nostalgia because it doesn't draw attention to that aspect. It doesn't even appear to be made with adults in mind, just age-appropriate at such a high quality that anyone can enjoy. It deserves to have fun with silly tropes and to not worry about a complex plot or trying to avoid cliches. Those things are naturally included, and it does justice to them instead of attempting to circumvent them out of fear or misunderstanding.
It's like a throwback to before tropes were taboo -- and to a time before the Great Franchise Push. This movie attempts no sequel-baiting, and leaves no ends loose. It's a complete, stand-alone story, and that may be my favorite thing about it of all. Fully rendered; leaves nothing off the table; explores as far as it can as fast as it can, knowing this is its one shot to satisfy. The world building is effortless because of how much ground is covered. It doesn't dawdle but is eager to move further, and forward, to the next cool place and the next fun and informative scene. Plentiful fun and plentiful content, existing together instead of distracting from the other.
As it should be for a no-holds-barred entertaining time!
For instance, there was one action sequence that I found incredibly boring, but they moved on from it so quickly that it barely made a dent in my enjoyment. And I know there were one or two jokes that I didn't find at all funny, but since none of the jokes are overplayed (hello, Marvel) I simply forgot them, and there was no ill effect. The whole movie seems to exist because of how funny Ryan Reynolds can be, so scene-stealing might be expected, but he doesn't. Certainly not from Justice Smith, even though I expect he could have without proper control. The characters are crafted to work together and play off each other, so there aren't distracting rabbit trails of one-upping humor.
The story is Tim's, and Smith carries the movie more than you'd expect, and does it well. The best work I've seen him do. And Reynolds isn't solely for comedy though that's where he shines. Tim and Pikachu's developing friendship has all the ups and downs that a good story needs, and the movie doesn't shy away from drama. It pulls off a winning theme to hold together all the adventuring, detecting, action, and comedy with the glue of deeper meaning. And the structure is very solid. I feel silly being impressed that it didn't fall apart in the end, but that's just the standard of late I suppose. All my issues are in details and are less missteps than things that didn't work for me personally.
There was basically nothing that detracted from the movie objectively. Even the bits I didn't care for are hard to recall.
It's not going to turn me into a Pokémon fan or anything, but since I've always been a fan a solid and meaningful stories, with engaging characters populating vast and fantastic imaginative worlds with devotion and humor -- it did all it needed in order to leave me happy as a Pikachu getting his chin scratched!
Last month I saw Shazam!Unicorn Store! The Perfect Date! The Man Who Killed Don Quixote! And, Avengers: Endgame!
Unicorn Store (review) and The Perfect Date (review) were Netflix watches and also the worst of the bunch, but still enjoyable in their own ways. I loved the heart and soul of Shazam! (review) but there were a bothersome flaws from time to time too. Avengers: Endgame (review) was a mostly pleasant experience since I was ready to be pandered and fan-served to, but that doesn't mean I didn't take issue with anything either.
But the best of the bunch hands down was The Man Who Killed Don Quixote (review) which I rented and rewatched multiple times, and it only seemed to get better and more brilliant each time, going from overwhelming fever dream to intricately choreographed dance between reality and fantasy. It's still a film that won't appeal to all, but the only way to know for sure is to watch it.
I'm not super hyped for any movies this month, but there is a next season of a great Netflix show I liked, and a few flicks that I might get out to see too. What looks good to you this month?
The Intruder
In theaters May 3rd; PG-13
I wouldn't normally include a movie like this because they don't usually catch my attention, but the special circumstance here is that I keep hearing hype (or maybe call it anti-hype) that it's quite bad, but kind of in a good way -- or maybe really quite good but everyone will say it's bad. Something like that, haha. Anyway, seems like something I might enjoy watching with my brothers for so-bad-it's-good kicks. No theater trip though. Dennis Quaid does seem quite hammy!
Clara
Streaming May 3rd; no rating
Well this one caught my attention by being a scifi movie (I'm so easy) and then I was amused by recognizing the actors from oldish TV shows -- the guy was the lead in Suits and the girl was McGee's sister on NCIS -- and it gave me flashbacks to my cable days. Oh and the two are real-life married which is always cute. The movie looks more like a drama and then low-key scifi but that makes sense, and the trailer implies some kind of scifi development near the end too, so yeah, I'll keep an eye out.
Pokémon Detective Pikachu
In theaters May 10th; PG
I thought this was just called "Detective Pikachu." Huh. Anyway, boo to me because I never watched, or played, or did whatever it is people do with Pokémons. I think I get the premise though. It's the trailer that won me over really, with how odd yet funny Ryan Reynolds's voice sounds coming out of cute realistic Pikachu, and how they played Holding Out for a Hero without an ounce of apology -- it give me the impression of being a Deadpool movie but rated PG. (They even both have the initials DP!) And if that's what it ends up being like, I definitely want to see -- history with Pokémons or not!
The Rain - Season 2
On Netflix May 17th; MA
This is a Danish-language scifi series where the rain was infected with a deadly virus. The last season ended in a way that made me wonder how it could continue in an interesting way, and based on this trailer they figured it out. They closed off elements in season 1's storyline, and are now adding new connected elements -- like apparently Rasmus is super-powered or something. And going in new directions. I loved the tone and the characters, and the story was neat presenting familiar apocalypse tropes in a freshly compelling way. I will 100% be watching this!
John Wick: Chapter 3 - Parabellum
In theaters May 17th; R
I like John Wick because of the simple straightforward plot that doesn't need much exposition or conversation to drive it, so that the emotionally-driven stylish action can constantly be front and center. Chapter 2 muddied that formula too much for my taste, so I'm hoping Chapter 3 will be a return to full form. The plot is simple. But the trailer also shows a lot of dialogue scenes, so I guess we'll see.
We Have Always Lived in the Castle
Limited release May 17th; not rated
I heard of this book but never read it. It's a mystery thriller, set in the 50's or 60's I suppose, and it being based on a book gives me more confidence that the story might be good than the trailer does. It's got an appealing cast too, with Taissa Farmiga, Alexandra Daddario, Sebastian Stan, and even Crispin Glover! Seems like the sort of flick that won't need to be particularly good in order to entertain me.
Aladdin
In theaters May 24th; PG
I was vaguely interested in this before, and I guess I'm not totally apposed to watching it ever, but since I was more interested in Dumbo and never got around to going to that I'm not even going to bother trying with this in the theater. I relatively liked the idea of a live action Aladdin but the tone and everything is so much an uninspired copy that I doubt it'll be what I wanted. My brother is a fan of the animated too, and thinks seeing this will taint it which is probably true, so we may not even see it for laughs. I expect it'll be good for a laugh, though, personally!
Brightburn
In theaters May 24th: R
The idea of a horror movie with a Superman-powered character is admittedly interesting, but I just can't see it being something I'd truly enjoy unless it had a great, meaningful twist in there somewhere. So I'll pay attention to what others think but it's a no thanks at the moment. I expect it'll be objectively good though.
Godzilla: King of the Monsters
In theaters May 31st; PG-13
Despite the aggravatingly slow pace of the 2014 Godzilla, I found the good parts of it good enough to have natural interest in this sequel. But then, based on the trailer it looks like an actual improvement over the first. Maybe the filmmakers heard the bored complaints. It looks like it better embraces the inherent cheese of its subject, and puts even more effort into appealing visually -- while not completely abandoning the subdued tone of the first. Ken Watanabe and Sally Hawkins are back, but no more Aaron Taylor-Johnson or Elizabeth Olsen. Added are Vera Farmiga, Millie Bobby Brown, Kyle Chandler, and the great Bradley Whitford. I bet I'll be in the theater for this one since I'm sure it'll be at it's best on a big screen!
The Merc with a Mouth is back and better than ever. Who says sequels aren't a good idea? While the first one felt like a dirty, joyless slog, this one finds its feet and a healthy relationship with the comics to produce a blast of a romp of a joyride that is what I've always hoped and envisioned a Deadpool movie could be.
Suddenly I'm not so tired of superhero movies anymore!
This time there's actually a plot, as Wade Wilson (Ryan Reynolds) sets out to protect a troubled young mutant Russell, aka Firefist (Julian Dennison) from Cable (Josh Brolin) a time-traveler from the future looking to kill the kid. It's The Terminator, it's Back to the Future, it's X-Men: Days of Future Past -- only it goes about it such a confident and straight-forward way, that though you may call it cliched, in my eyes it became a main reason the film worked so well.
As an action-comedy, plot originality and complexity shouldn't be all that high on the priority list. This plot serves the movies genre. Action; comedy. The time-travel element particularly lends itself to some exceptional hilarity, and the solid action beats it calls for are fundamental and easy to follow. On that level its basic, straightforward entertainment. But then, it builds on that, with character arcs, complete with depth, emotion, empathy, morals and themes; all woven together seamlessly, complementing and working with the plot. This isn't a character piece, but they are far from neglected.
Directed by David Leitch, who didn't direct the first one, and that makes a lot of sense.
I knew avocado-faced Wade had it in him to be an empathetic character, and I knew Reynolds could play drama and not have it come out dumb and cheesy, and I'm so glad they didn't spend the whole film relentlessly cracking jokes. The ebb and flow between humor and drama here is nearly indistinguishable, and at times played simultaneously, neither interfering, but actually enhancing each other. It is a comedy, so laugh-out-loud punch lines are as common as the CGI, but the movie doesn't force loud humor into where it doesn't belong, and strangely for R-rated fare, there's plenty of soft, warm-hearted and subtle humor too.
The humor is often not appropriate, but it is used appropriately. Ironically, the ruder the jokes got, the more likely to be forced they seemed to be. Like the priority of jokes tended more toward being "R" than fitting the moment, and sometimes they just weren't funny but were used because of how "R" they were. That seemed to happen with the F-words too. Jokes can be funny with, and even enhanced by foul language, but adding random words to an awkwardly-delivered F-bomb doesn't automatically make it hilarious.
That's just f---tastically stupid.
The dirty rudeness was the low point for me, but at the same time, they delivered so much humor that did hit, with such joy and aplomb, that I felt it would've been extremely ungrateful of me to not grant them a little room for potty-mouth fans. Forgiving their indulgence was, I found, super easy. Even as one particular joke dragged on for minutes that I wasn't finding all that funny, I couldn't help but smile, because it was clear that those involved were having a blast with it, and the good-humored fun was contagious even when the jokes didn't land.
I'm trying my hardest not to directly compare this film with Infinity War, but I'm pausing now to say that though the plot was basic, and humor was the main goal, Deadpool still involved me more, made it easy to care, and I wish Disney/Marvel could get back to being this gleefully entertaining. Also, there was one death scene that was miles better than anything Infinity War failed to contrive. And that leads me to Josh Brolin, because he was in both these movies -- as a villain -- who's meant to be sympathetic.
What a legend.
An absolute legend.
I don't suppose it was his fault that Cable beats Thanos with a stick. A ripped, scarred old man with a Winter Solider arm is automatically better than a grape with a chin, but even with half the time devoted, Cable practically bursts with nuance and gritty sympathy. And he's just cool. There's no other way to describe it. Then Wade is all goof and charm, and the mixture is a goldmine of epic fan moments. The banter; the chemistry; the fights. It's enough to make you giddy as the entertainment level leaps off the chart.
Julian Dennison as Russell was a great addition, proving it wasn't at all a fluke how funny and dramatic he could be in Hunt for the Wilderpeople. Morena Baccarin returns as Vanessa, and was lovely and charming, and the romance in this movie was so much better than it had any right to be. I'd try to tell Deadpool that he can't possibly do everything well and should pick a genre, but clearly, I would be the wrong party in that argument. I was sad to see so little of Bill Skarsgård, but hey, it was Bill Skarsgård. And Zazie Beetz as Domino. Such a cinematic superpower, my goodness. And her cheerfully sassy personality fit right in.
Hardcore, awesome, super lucky -- what's not to be cheerful about?
It was nice that references were topical -- mentions of debated issues such as cultural appropriation -- but remained apolitical about it all. Never setting out to take sides or genuinely insult, but to poke fun at modern culture in general. This movie is all-inclusive. Deadpool even insists that it's a family film, and it is about family, in a genuine and heartfelt way. Though if he wanted kids to see it, he should've rethought all those expletives and that all-out gory violence.
And thank your lucky stars (or maybe Domino?) for those fourth-wall breaks. From "Look guys, I'm breaking the fourth wall! Aren't I funny?" in the last movie, to actually, really breaking the fourth wall, and in clever and nuanced ways. It's so casual and underplayed it never jolts you out of the movie experience, but instead it's like the real-world is drawn into the film. And the film is funnier and more wide-open for it.
Obviously this movie knows how to have fun.
If anything holds Deadpool back, it's its R-rating. An R-rating is natural, but there's a sense of strict obligation here that could be done without. It did away with the superhero obligation that Disney/Marvel has created; each new superhero flick needing to build on top of the last one for bigger, better, fresher; more, more, more! It's gotten so bad that now, this normal superhero flick, that doesn't feel like it's holding back when it never destroys an entire city, is the one that's breaking the mold.
Even with its irreverence, and its carefree attitude, this film focuses small and intimate, letting us get to know and care for its characters. It delivers clear-cut battles with brutal glee, wildly entertaining choreography, and an extra-large side of comic violence. It takes time to set up jokes; it slows down for moments of real drama; and it comes out the other side with a strikingly positive message for a movie about anti-heroes.
It hits you right on the X.
I can only conclude that Deadpool must actually care about being a great, fun, entertaining film. And no matter where or how it might misstep, that is the greatest complement I can give any movie of its kind. It puts in the effort. The maximum effort.
Wow. It's May already! I got to three movies on my list last month. A Quiet Place was the best of them, an excellent genre film. (Review here!) I watched Marrowbone off Amazon, and it was... complicated. (Review here.) And then of course, there was Avengers: Infinity War. Le sigh. I was painfully accurate in my predictions about this movie in all ways except one (and even that one is potentially arguable). I'm still a Marvel fan which is half of why I still go to these movies, but I feel like they've left me behind. The movies are barely even movies anymore, and not meant for the likes of me. (Review here.)
I also finally saw The Death Cure (Yay!) and it was a little more disappointing than I was hoping (Boo.) but it was still a worthwhile watch. (Review here.) And I hadn't posted my Ready Player One review yet last time, so if you missed that, check it here!
I think permanently missed Thoroughbreds in theaters, but I'm still wondering about Lean on Pete -- did I miss it, or is it never coming to a theater in my area? Whatever, I'll be sure to get both of those asap. I feel like I'm missing all the hidden gems of this year, and that feeling has been amplified by the joyless dominating event that is Infinity War.
This month doesn't actually have much going for it, but here's what we've got!:
The Cleanse
May 4th (limited); R
This one looks so strange. I little cheaply made maybe, but practical effects, so making good use of what they have. It's a horror comedy, and it looks both weirdly terrifying and strangely amusing, so I have to say I'm interested enough to keep an eye on how it does critically.
Terminal
May 11th (limited); R
They had me at Margo Robbie and Simon Pegg. And then I found out it's got a neon-noir style to it! I can't tell what the plot is from the trailer, but it sure does look good. Looks more than a little inappropriate for me too, but I have an app for that, so we'll see what happens.
The Seagull
May 11th (limited); PG-13
Based on a play I don't think I've ever heard of, but it's by Anton Chekhov, so I'd guess it's good. I like the period and the look, and the cast too, so I'll probably give it a go whenever it's becomes convenient from my living room. Anyone know the story?
Deadpool 2
May 18th; NR
This is an interesting situation. As you may know, I didn't like the first one at all, but I am a fan of the comic Deadpool, so I'm willing to give him as many chances as he wants to take. The first trailer gave me hope it might be an improvement, and the second trailer took all that hope away. Now this final trailer has restored hope again, and I'm not sure what to think. The trailer makes me laugh, and it appears to have a real plot this time. I won't speculate, but I am definitely interested to see and see how it goes. Domino is probably going to be awesome. And I spy with my little eye, someone who's name is Bill Skarsgård! No mpaa rating yet, but that one's not a hard guess. (On that note, language warning for this trailer.)
First Reformed
May 18th (limited); R
One of those trailers that looks all intriguing and artsy with a lot to say, but the only way to find out if you'll like it and what it has to say is to watch it. Ethan Hawke looks good. And Amanda Seyfried is in it, too.
Solo: A Star Wars Story
May 25th; PG-13
You know, I'd be 100% on board for this movie, hyped and actually excited -- if only his name wasn't Han Solo. Of course if he wasn't Han, then Emilia Clark would be the main character (that's the rule) and Donald Glover wouldn't get to be Lando, and then what would the point even be? This was such a bad idea. Poor Alden Ehrenreich. If he's a good Han he'll be underused what with all those supporting characters, and if he's bad -- he's bad. They just need to own it. Be like, "I'm Han Freakin' Solo. Deal with it." and let the haters hate. But the movie seems ashamed of him. Like they know this is a terrible idea. From the concept, to firing the directors, to the cast (except Glover and probably Paul Bettany) to the cliched "we're putting together a team" plot, all reeks of disaster. But visually, it looks great. Coloring, lighting, framing; it looks like it'll be visually pleasant. And as for the rest -- I'm not determined to hate it. I'm mostly just curious to see.
Well 2017 is officially a very impressive movie year! Last month I said it would be if anything managed to top the brilliant Baby Driver, and, (while I hesitate to compare them so directly since they're such completely different pieces of filmmaking) I think Dunkirk has done just that. I saw it regular, and then again in 70mm, and since I wrote my review before seeing the 70mm version, I'd like to talk a bit about the 70mm experience. Just skip down if this is completely uninteresting to you:
Firstly, yes, digital 70mm is a thing. Being a novice about being picky about movie screens it confused me for a while that my theater claimed to be showing a movie in film format digitally, but yes, everything looked and sounded as it should. I don't know if this is a super common question to have, but I would have liked a nice straightforward answer like this when I was wondering, so I'm putting it out there.
Next, what to expect with 70mm: If you're a film connoisseur or already know you love Dunkirk I'd absolutely recommend seeing it in 70mm. If you're a casual moviegoer, you might find it odd, because while the 70mm is being presented to us as the movie enhanced, it's enhanced in style rather than in quality. It is sharper, yes, and there more contrast to the picture, but those are minute details, and some of the more major differences in a lot of ways actually detract from the movie's quality. (Such as we've come to think of movie quality of course.) The 70mm's whites are much brighter and appear to vibrate on the screen -- the sort of thing you'd call a flaw if you saw it in a Transformer movie. The blacks are also much darker (at one point in the movie the lights go out, and it's as if the film itself goes out) and colors seemed more true. Some scenes had different tints from others. And you can see tiny imperfections in the film.
The biggest change though, and one I didn't expect, was the sound. There was much more bass overall (so as Spitfires fly overhead in the film, you feel their noise move through you as you would in real life) and the dialogue had some difficult to describe qualities to it -- to me it sounded vaguely like dialogue from on old 30's or 40's movie, which is appropriate, but it had a lowness to it, like higher frequencies in the voices were cut out. It also sounded grainy (if things can sound grainy) and almost muted, yet I found it easier to understand the lines. That seems counter-intuitive, but my dad said the same thing, and he's the one in the family who usually doesn't understand dialogue, so I swear, it's not just me being weird. Honestly the sound was my favorite difference, and absolutely enhanced the movie, which had already blown me away, to an even higher level.
Some of those things could easily be called flaws in a normal movie situation, except, here, that is how Christopher Nolan meant the film to be. What was made obsolete by improving technology has now become an artistic style choice, and Nolan used it to great advantage. Regular movie projection now shows us the film as less than it's meant to be -- and I find that very neat. (Then of course there's IMAX to consider but I won't go there.) It goes along with how the characters were done; Nolan stripped away the common and the unnecessary from the film, making his vision all the more focused. In short, after seeing Dunkirk in 70mm, I feel that my experience experiencing this experience of a film is only now truly complete. And the ticket price was not a cent more expensive!
I also saw Spider-Man: Homecoming in July, but after Dunkirk, poor Spidey is a bit overshadowed right now! I liked the movie, and loved Tom Holland as the kid hero, and even saw it twice! (Review here!) I still want to see Valerian someday, but probably won't waste ticket money on it, and since War for the Planet of the Apes got such a good response from fans, I'll watch that eventually too; to either solidify my low opinion, or change my mind (unlikely, but possible I suppose.)
August has no must-sees (unless new information develops) but a good spread of pretty interesting movies! A nice number of indies! I like indies. Anyway, on to my list. How was your movie-July? And how is you movie-August shaping up? Let me know in the comments!
The Dark Tower
Aug 4th; PG-13
Based on the novel series by Steven King, and the trailer looks cool, but I don't really have a dog in this race. I never got around to reading the book, though I usually do whenever an interesting movie based on a book is coming up. Maybe I could still squeeze it in, but I'm not sure I want to. I heard rumors that there were changes made, and the book fans aren't terribly happy? Of course based solely on the trailer, it being based on a King story is a definite plus. Idris Elba is always effortlessly cool and hardcore, and Matthew McConaughey playing the baddie is nice for once. I'm not holding out much hope that it'll be much more than a fun mid-summer action flick with some neat sci-fi elements, but if it does that, and does it well, that'll be all it needs to be anyway -- for me that is. For the fans I hope it's a satisfying adaptation. If there are good reviews it's likely that I'll go see this one.
Wind River
Aug 4th; R
I still haven't seen Sicario or Hell or High Water, but every time this Taylor Sheridan writes a movie it looks very interesting. This one is a murder mystery starring Jeremy Renner and Elizabeth Olsen. I've always liked the niche dynamic they have in the Avengers movies, so I'd like to see this one someday on that point alone. I think the trailer gives too much away though, so maybe think twice before watching it.
Some Freaks
Aug 4th(limited); NR
Thomas Mann is great. I'll watch him in any kind of romance/dramedy. He seems to like the quirky ones, and this one's about as quirky as they come! It's an indie so who knows when it'll pop up somewhere, but I'll be on the lookout.
The Only Living Boy in New York
Aug 11th(limited); R
Whether I want to see this depends largely on how it ends, and what the take-away is, but in order to know that, you have to see it. So I'll keep an eye open. It's got a great cast. Listening to Jeff Bridges explain existential things is one of the finer things in life.
Pilgrimage
Aug 11th(limited); NR
Me watching this trailer: "Ooo, Peter Parker and Punisher medieval team up, that's sounds cool." "Woah, it's a quest movie -- very Lord of the Rings." "Oh my gosh, Ritchard Armitage! It is Middle Earth!" And then finally: "Yikes." This actually looks quite a bit more interesting than a mere Spidey/Punisher team-up. Will be on the lookout.
The Hitman's Bodyguard
Aug 18th; R
So, like, the comedy version of Safe House? Sounds neat. Honestly I expected I wouldn't even have to bother with this one since it's so blatantly R-rated, but apparently there will be only language and violence so not as bad as I was expecting. R-rated comedies can work for me, but it has to be genuinely a good movie for me to brave the waters. This is a case of "wait-and-see." The trailer I saw in theaters a while back made it look pretty dumb, but this one has more promise. Samuel L. Jackson is for sure, but Ryan Reynolds is hit or miss. Hopefully it's a hit, but I won't be missing anything if it isn't.
Logan Lucky
Aug 18th; PG-13
Channing Tatum, Adam Driver, Daniel Craig getting as far away from Bond as he possibly can poor guy, Sebastian Stan, Katie Holmes, Katherine Watterson, Hilary Swank -- it's definitely got the cast of a good movie! It's got oddball comedy, a memorable quirky plot, weirdo characters, and a heist. Sounds like a pretty great movie actually. It's also got an early perfect score on RT. It hasn't reached must-see status for me yet, but I will be paying close attention as it comes around the bend.
The Defenders
Aug 18th on Netflix Daredevil season 1 was fantastic. Season 2 was barely passable only because of Punisher. I never watched Jessica Jones or Luke Cage, and probably never will. And Iron Fist was laughably bad and a sad letdown. Yet, here I am, garnering up excitement for the team-up. My optimistic mind is considering that Iron Fist was only terrible because it was rushed, and since Defenders is Netflix-Marvel's big event effort will be put into it. My rational mind watches this trailer, and sees nothing worth getting hopes up for. I won't be surprised if the 18th rolls around and I find myself sitting down to watch this -- the surprise will come if it's actually as great as it should be.
In February, The Lego Batman Movie turned out to be every bit the awesome must-see flick for every age that its predecessor was! Read about how awesome and hilarious I thought it was here! No other movies tempted me last month, but I am watching Legion on FX, and so far it is quite excellent.
March marks the beginning of 2017's highly anticipated movie lineup, with big release after big release. I'm sure I'll get to the theater at least once! What looks good to you? Are any of your most anticipated 2017 movies releasing this month?
Logan
Mar 3rd, R
Hugh Jackman's Wolverine has always been my favorite thing about the X-Men franchise, but his solo movies have never been quite what they should be. Maybe with Logan, his run will end with changing that! This one's already got excellent reviews from critics, and they finally buckled down and gave him an R-rated movie -- something I am all for on the counts of violence and language if the story calls for it. Annoyingly, there is also brief nudity, and while it's a good sign that the movie isn't filled with nudity and sex, that brief inclusion will almost certainly cause my family to wait for the DVD.
Before I Fall
Mar 3rd, PG-13
Am I a sucker for "Groundhog Day" movies? Yes, yes I am. This one mixes the fun gimmick with high school drama for a popular girl who lives the same day over and over -- ending each day dying in a car crash -- and begins to wonder if her life really is as great as she thinks. It's unlikely that this movie will reach the great levels of Groundhog Day, or even Edge of Tomorrow, but that doesn't at all mean that it's not going to be a worthwhile movie in its own right. I hope it will be, and I'm curious to see for myself.
Table 19
Mar 3rd, PG-13
Cute and possibly cynical dramedy with possible romance starring Anna Kendrick, anyone? Yeah, this is one of those chick-flicks that just seems like a no-brianer, with the charm and quirky appeal the trailer exhibits.
Kong: Skull Island
Mar 10th, PG-13
Look -- I'm under no delusion about this movie that it'll be anything but ridiculous. The first trailers tried to evoke some kind of seriousness and depth, but this one seems most honest. Ridiculous. Stylish, action-packed, star-studded ridiculousness, and as long as it's fun -- which seems a promising possibility -- I'm on board for the adventure! Seriously, this is the style of movie that Kong was meant for.
Beauty and the Beast
Mar 17th, PG
Full disclosure: I still think the animation of the Beast's face looks bad. Like, I'm worried about how much of a distraction it'll be bad. Otherwise, I'm excited this live action version of the story. Emma Watson looks good; Dan Stevens will hopefully be worth casting for the little time his face will be on screen; and I can already sense that Luke Evan's Gaston will the scene-stealing favorite. There's a part of me that doubts the film will be able to match the latest Cinderella's grand perfection, but as long as it can recapture even a spark of the magic of the original -- which I think it has based on the trailer -- everything should be great.
The Belko Experiment
Mar 17th, R
Normally this is the kind of movie where I'd look at the trailer, scoff pleasantly, move along, and watch it on TV three years later. However, this one was co-written by James Gunn, and that brings a lot of interest. Especially after I heard that the film has a lot of comedy (which you can't tell from this trailer) plus a cast full of familiar faces including John Gallagher Jr. in the apparent lead, and Sean Gunn and Michael Rooker. So I still might not see it until it hits the TV, or who knows. But now it's on my list.
Power Rangers
Mar 24th, PG-13
Tee-hee. I feel a little bit silly for including this one, especially since I can't claim nostalgia, having never watched the TV show, but I dunno, it looks fun. Cheesy, cliched, and probably too young for me, but fun. There's just something classically appealing about actioners like this, that don't feel the need to take risks and break new ground but to just do what works. Or maybe what doesn't work because this has all the earmarks of a movie with a good first act, a crumbling second act, and a distracted, directionless third that ruins everything. If that's not the case, I'll probably watch it. But to be honest, I'll probably watch it anyway.
Life
Mar 24th, NR
What, Christmas already? I love space travel movies; space travel movies that are subtly science fiction, using science to speculate into the near future, and most importantly space scifi movies where everything steadily plummets into crazy, terrifying horror. Yep, it appears to be Christmas. This one stars Ryan Reynolds, the lovely Rebecca Ferguson, Jake Gyllenhaal, and Hirouki Sanada (of Sunshine, a favorite of the sub-genre). It's not rated yet so we'll see about that, but I have high hopes. Very, very, extraterrestrially high.
Ghost in the Shell
Mar 31st, NR
This one definitely rides on what the rating ends up being. If it's appropriate enough, I'll be very interested, mainly just for the world-building aspect, which looks crazy and extremely unique -- although I suppose it isn't so much for people who watched the anime. Scarlett Johansson stars. It looks very stylish and not a little creepy.
The Zookeeper's Wife
Mar 31st, PG-13
A war drama rounds out the genres of the month. This one stars Jessica Chastain and tells the true story of the proprietor of a Polish zoo and his wife in 1939 who harbor Jews in the zoo and their home as Poland is invaded by Nazis. Daniel Bruhl also stars as the main villain. Jessica Chastain is the main appeal with this for me, but the unique and true aspects of it also seem to indicate an interesting historic film. Keeping an eye on this one.
Iron Fist
Premieres Mar 17th on Netflix
As great as this month looks movie-wise, there is nothing I am more excited for than Iron Fist. I have not been this excited for a Netflix Marvel show since the first season of Daredevil. I have high hopes, but not quite as much confidence. I know the potential is there, but if they are just getting this out there so the Defenders can happen things might not be as great as they should be. I will be very upset if that happens, because with what I can see of the characters and the premise, this show could be a new favorite of mine easily. I've got a lot riding on this -- don't let me down, Marvel!
Off VidAngel, of course. And I
didn't really want to, but my brother did, so I kept him company,
figuring that at least it would give a little more credence to my
already-expressed low opinion of this film.
I'm very glad I saw it; now that I know how dumb it is, I can forget all about it. And it only cost me 2 dollars! (I am not sponsored by VidAngel, but dang, I could be!)
When
the trailers came out, and the film released in theaters, this movie's
existence made me mad. And sad. At first I thought it was a purely
selfish reaction; that because I wouldn't allow myself to watch a film
with content like that (but would have been very interested otherwise) I
was annoyed that they didn't cater more to my preference. And while
that is a little true -- obviously I'd wish all movies to be exactly my
kind of movie -- I slowly realized, and have now confirmed the bigger
truth behind the matter.
The truth is that I have never predicted a movie with such pinpoint accuracy as I did in February's Upcoming Movie post. Now I have seen my success.
Deadpool made me angry
from the very beginning by exploiting its content. It seemed to exist
only to be inappropriate. I didn't think that a movie like that could
possibly be faithful to a comic book, so I did the only thing that could
settle the matter for me, and started reading Deadpool comics. I've
been reading them since before the film released, so I've got through a
decent amount of them, and therefore had established an understanding of
Mr. Pool's character all on my own before ever seeing this film. And
I'm really glad I did. Not just because the comics are very entertaining
and commonly hilarious (which they are) but because I now feel
qualified to hate this film's rendition of the character to my heart's
content (which I do).
Don't worry buddy -- after this I love and appreciate the comic character even more!
I'm
not sure yet if I want to make direct comparisons between the comics
and the film, but let's start out with a very broad statement on the
subject: the only way the film could be less faithful to the comics is
by changing its lead's name to Captain Mossbeard and having his
superpower be an uncanny ability to completely avoid all injury with no
effort at all. Okay, maybe not quite; comic Pool does have a penchant
for babes (which never goes anywhere) and swearing (which always comes
out like "@$&*$," even at a PG-13 level) and violence (which is
directed way more towards him than his victims) and wacky jokes (which
are original, funny, and comparatively quite clean). But in this movie's eyes, that's
all there is to him. (I guess I did want to do some direct comparing.)
And while I'm on the subject, the scene with the pizza delivery guy was
pulled right out of the comics. Just sayin' -- that why it was cool. If
only they'd done that for the rest of the movie.
Now
on to the film. We set the VidAngel filters so that the film was
basically rated R for violence (if we cut that out there wouldn't be
anything left to watch), and PG for everything else. Oh, we left the
S-words in -- but I soon regretted that. And you know, I don't mind
sitting through language if the movie is worth it, but I didn't think
this one would be worth one single F-bomb, and it turns out I was right.
Watching this film was... an interesting experience. With all the sex,
nudity, language and crude humor out of the way, all that was left to
notice was the story that was under it all.
At heart, Deadpool is a romance. One of the most typical and distracted romances I've ever seen.
This
is my overall impression of the movie: Dude falls in love with woman.
Contracts cancer. Pushes woman away. Gets a cure which messes up his
good looks. Tries to get his good looks and his woman back. On this base
level, it's just drivel. Minus the good looks bit it's nothing more
than a Hallmark movie -- and even then it's typical. But it doesn't
matter that the basic plot is what lonely women paint their nails over
on lazy Saturday afternoons, right? Because it's just a platform for
everything else; a blank canvas to splash blood and gore on.
I
guess everything that filled up the run time in between the plot was
meant to distract so well that no one would ever notice. Extremely epic
and violent superhero battles! Endearing romance! A non-stop onslaught
of the most brilliant comedy you will ever see because you will die of
laughter after you see it! Plus that one thing that's so unique to
Deadpool that makes everyone love him; breaking the fourth wall! At this
point who remembers that plot anyway? The movie's originality and
brilliance is in those things, right?
Short answer: No. Long answer...
Noooooooooo.
Let's start with an easy one; those fourth wall breaks -- one of my
favorite things about Deadpool. (Besides the yellow and white thought
bubbles that he has full conversations with, his random obscure
references, and the plot twists that is.) They were made super easy by
having the movie be narrated by Deadpool. So he'll just look at the
camera while doing it every once in a while. I know. Riveting stuff. It
was better when he did it more casually, like acknowledging the
existence of Ryan Reynolds (even though he is Ryan Reynolds!),
but the worst was the fourth wall within a fourth wall bit. "That's
like, sixteen walls!" Um, no, it isn't. It's still just one. Apparently
the movie's writers don't know what a fourth wall is. Or how to break
one without ripping off Ferris Bueller.
"Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in a while, you might miss it." -- not Deadpool.
On
to the comedy. This will be quick because practically half of the
punchlines were muted. Of what was left, most of the jokes didn't make
sense (sixteen walls) or were just too immature to be funny. I counted
about four moments total that I considered funny. Two of them were
related to Megasonic Teenage Warhead, and one was the Hugh Jackman mask.
The
romance was too closely connected with the plot to be any good. It was
so typical and cliched it was ridiculous! I'm wracking my brain for one
thing that was even slightly original and the only thing I can come up
with is that the romance was between a prostitute and a mercenary. Even
that sounds trite when I say it out loud.
Acting wasn't
terrible. This kind of movie doesn't need it to be exceptional so it
worked, but there was nothing noteworthy. I'd heard that people were
impressed by Reynolds' performance, but it's really only good in
comparison with Green Lantern, which is arguably the worst thing he's
ever done, and also arguably the worst thing anyone has ever done. In
comparison with his endless stream of dumb rom-coms, it was par for the
course except with a hardcore haircut, and then uglifying prosthetics --
wait, forget that one... Just Friends. Personally, I was much more impressed with him in Safe House, and when he steers clear of any kind of comedy altogether.
Certainly not the definitive Deadpool.
Now
the biggest disappointment: the action. And this was the one thing that
I was expecting to actually be able to enjoy, but man, it was all
pretty pathetic. And that really surprised me, especially considering
that the action was completely unedited for my viewing. There were the
parts that were R-rated, mainly on the bridge, totally only there to be
R-rated, and nothing special besides having extra gore and
unrealistically sized bullet holes. And then there was the stuff that
was the action; fighting, running, spinning jumps, dodging bullets and
mowing down the faceless extras. And guys, it is with a shaking head
that I write this: That stuff was boring. I kid not. I exaggerate not.
It was completely lifeless. I guess that's what I get for expecting
DisneyMarvel-quality action out of a FoxMarvel movie, but there were no
cool stunts, and almost no choreography at all let alone good choreography. And everything looked very cheap. They spent their whole budget on strippers I guess.
One
more thing to rant about and then I'll wrap up. The ending. The ending is
where all the terrible elements previously mentioned come together and
really let loose with their cheap boring terribleness, but it also
reminded me of how no effort was put into the plot at all. The romance
side of it was a Hallmark movie, but the action side? Nonexistent. I was
honestly expecting a neat plot twist wherein Deadpool actually had a
plan and saves the day is classic Deadpool fashion, but nothing
happened! He saves his girl from falling off the cliff by throwing her
off the cliff, and then kills the bad guy is a completely unsurprising
move. And that's it. Someone flips the channel back to Hallmark where
the plot's drama is resolved out of nothing, there's some kissing, and
then you just kinda sit there wondering what the takeaway is supposed to
be.
I need hardly tell you that in this film, there
is not positive and/or moral takeaway -- of any kind. You may be
interested to know, however, that in the comics, there often is, because
in the comics, though Deadpool kills people (bad guys) he also always
does something noble and heroic too. So there's a balance. Here; none.
Bite me.
And
please, riddle me this: Why, when your superhero can get shot an
unlimited amount of times and still be fine, would you still think it
necessary to have him fight through raining bullets from multiple gunmen
and come out miraculously unscathed? WHY?? Why did that happen in an
R-rated DEADPOOL movie? What excuse could possibly be given? Did they
forget who their main character was? How could they overlook such a
shining opportunity to riddle Deadpool with bullet holes? It actually
makes me mad how many opportunities for quality this film tossed away,
like an ignorant kid who eats the rat-poison cherry off the top of a
milkshake, and refuses to even taste the rest.
Of all the stupid things this film does, my favorite was how they couldn't think of an
extremely graphic way to kill the alien from Galaxy Quest, so they just
had Deadpool tell us to look away. And that basically sums up the
problem with this movie; they couldn't be bothered to be
original, so they just covered it all up with cheap cop-out
distractions. And if any superhero deserves originality, it's Deadpool.
I
detest this movie because the goal of it was to make a shocking movie,
not a quality one. I hate it on a personal level because I would have
loved to see a good, faithful, and original Deadpool flick, but it also
offends me as a movie lover, and as someone who understands -- at least a
little bit -- what a good movie is. Because that is the last thing this
cinematic trash is. I can thank it for one thing: being so pathetically
terrible that it drove me to the comics, where the true Merc with a
Mouth thrives.
January saw no surprises, and I was so busy that I didn't even get out to a third Star Wars viewing! I enjoyed Sherlock: The Abominable Bride at home, and am currently enjoying Agent Carter's second season. February has a few movies to talk about and a few movies I'd like to see at home sometime, but it seems that I can just copy and paste my theater plans from last month: if I go to the theater, it'll probably be for The Force Awakens. And that's fine by me!
Pride and Prejudice and Zombies
Feb 5th; PG-13
Ugh, I feel like such a bad Jane Austen fan for even mentioning this. But look: I love Jane Austen. I love zombies. I have already seen many Austen-knock-off movies (Lost in Austen, Jane Austen Book Club, Austenland, etc.) and they were all their very own special brand of terrible. Some more so than others. If I were to not watch this movie, it would be because I'm be afraid that it would ruin my enjoyment of the good, 1995 P&P. But I've already been subjected to all those knock-offs, and the 2005 P&P, which didn't ruin the other one, and how much worse could it be with zombies? Not much -- at least there's no Keira Knightley! It might be dumb and terrible and disrespectful, but it'll also have zombies, so it's not supposed to be taken seriously. Plus, it's got Lily James! And Matt Smith! And Sam Riley! (And wow, I'm actually kinda sad this isn't just a regular P&P adaptation...) So that's my explanation for this next sentence: I want to see this movie. Help.
Hail, Caesar!
Feb 5th; PG-13
WELL -- the Coen Brother's new movie looks like a win! (It's got a comma and an exclamation point in its title, so you know it's gonna be good!) This trailer is downright brilliant, and I would watch it if the whole movie was like that even without a plot. The Coens always seem to be doing something new, and totally out-of-the-box, and this one fits the bill more than ever. It even almost feels like a Wes Anderson film from the trailer, though with a distinctly Coen's sense of humor. This total oddball throws back to Hollywood's Golden Age, and follows around a Hollywood "Fixer" (Josh Brolin) as he... fixes.... things.... ... The whole cast is absolutely giant -- George Clooney, Ralph Fiennes, Tilda Swinton, Scarlett Johansson, Canning Tatum, Jonah Hill... It doesn't really matter to me whether the movie is generally considered bad or good. I want to see it. That cast, those directors, the 50's, Hollywood -- I just must see it. But, if I were to venture a guess, I would think it'd certainly be on the good side.
The Choice
Feb 5th; PG-13
Okay, anyone who knows me know that I am not in any way a Nicholas Sparks fan. But, anyone who knows me well knows that I surprisingly often watch movies based on his novels anyway. When it comes to sappy romantic drama, there is nothing better. And I really do meant that; these movies are tear-jerking, squishy, cheesy cry-fests, but they are of a very high quality. So high, in fact, that actors I like very often get cast in them. Like this one, for instance, stars Teresa Palmer of Warm Bodies and Benjamin Walker of Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. The zombie killer and the vampire killer come together for a little Southern romance. Nicholas Sparks or not, that's interesting enough -- maybe even if someone winds up dead! Maybe.
Deadpool
Feb 12th; R
[Rant] Not watching Deadpool will probably be one of the most disappointing moments in my movie-watching career. I love Deadpool. When I saw X-Men Origins: Wolverine I didn't even know who he was, but since this movie became a thing I've looking into him and found out more about him than any other superhero yet. The strips he's in are absolutely hilarious, and his powers are brilliantly gory. But this movie... I guess I knew from the first trailer when I actually had to specify "green band trailer" in order to find the appropriate one, but this movie goes beyond what I'll allow myself to watch, and in fact, what I want to watch. It's rated R. No duh. But let me break it down: Violence -- okay, that's good. Deadpool would probably be terrible without R violence. Language -- "language throughout" specifically. That'll be about 100 f-bombs. Whew. I can brave language, but even then it usually detracts from the movie. All I see here is 100 times someone could have said something original. Sexual content -- yep, can I just ask, WHY? Why does the movie need this? Answer: it actually doesn't. And here's the real kicker: Graphic nudity -- that takes the cake. And that brings me to my point which encapsulates the whole problem I have with this movie. This movie is not out to make a good, fun, original Deadpool movie. It's all about the shock and awe. It wants to push the envelope as far over the edge of edginess as it will go, and see how many fans eat it up like so much grocery store birthday cake. If I'm right about this movie, it won't be funny, it won't be original, and it certainly won't be well-acted, but if I'm right, everyone will still believe it is. If you're excited for this movie and plan to see it (and if you see it and love it) I'm sorry to be so harsh, but I've thought on this subject a lot and have some pretty passionate opinions about it. I'm just really disappointed right now. [/rant]
Gods of Egypt
Feb 26th; PG-13
Huge monsters. Ancient heroes. Cheesy, low quality dialogue, and gobs and gobs of visual effects that aren't-really-that-impressive. It looks like the new class of Clash of the Titans is here! Which means it'll probably be a fun popcorn watch, but I would never pay to see it. But, since it also has Rufus Sewell in it, I'll watch it as soon as I can for free.
The first full Deadpool trailer has arrived! I am not sharing the red band trailer (R-rated trailer). If you want to see it, it's easy enough to find -- in fact they linked to it at the end of this here green band trailer:
This is interesting to me because this is the first time I've ever witnessed a red band trailer be more popular than the green band. It worries me for the film a bit actually. I'll watch an R-rated movie, though I'm extra careful about them, and it bothers me when movies are made to be R for no good reason. Now, Deadpool would probably be terrible if they tried to make it PG-13. It definitely couldn't do without R type violence. But with them pushing this profane trailer so hard, it seems like their goal is not to make a great movie that will happen to be rated R, but to make a really, really inappropriate R-rated movie, and count on it also being great. I'm very interested to see how this movie will turn out -- but not counting on it being one I'll want to witness personally, just in case.
Judging just from this trailer, it definitely looks funny and sharp and violent, and full of potential.
What do you think of the trailer? And do you have any thoughts on the subject of the rating?
