Jojo Rabbit

Spoiler-free!

I hesitate to start this review of Taika Watiti's latest project, a hilarious and sad dramedy that satirizes Nazism, because I don't want to talk about Marvel anymore -- too late already. And anyway, I can't think of any better way to describe the way this movie succeeds in walking a thin and unexpected tightrope that even Waititi himself has previously failed to traverse.

No, I'm not going to compare the Marvel Cinematic Universe to Nazis. 

Maybe you liked Thor: Ragnarok, and the way Waititi used Marvel Brand humor in it. If so, go see this movie. If you thought Ragnarok was funny, you'll think this film is hilarious. What I'm here to say though, is a slightly more shocking revelation: that even though I hated the humor in Ragnarok, I still thought Jojo Rabbit was not only wonderfully hilarious, but also incredibly moving and upsetting, without forcing the comedy to give way to the darkness, or vice versa. It's a black comedy, but usually dark comedies don't make me laugh out loud. And usually laugh-out-loud comedies don't make my heart ache. So this little rabbit is a strange beast indeed.

Starring Roman Griffin Davis as Jojo, a nine-year-old Nazi Youth recruit who dreams of being best friends with der Führer. An imaginary version of Adolf (played by Waititi) appears to him from time to time to council him in the ways of the Reich. Jojo's mother (Scarlett Johansson) is hiding a Jewish girl (the one-and-only Thomasin McKenzie) in the walls, and when Jojo discovers her, his loyalty to the Nazi ideology is tested in life-changing ways.

He comes of age and must chose a path as he is slowly taught what Nazism really is.

This film's greatest feature is its unique style of comedy. Everyone in the film does cheesy German accents, and most of the jokes, as expected, are about Nazism and WWII. But because Waititi writes with his very specific New Zealand-style comedy, the two elements blend in an inimitable way. The result is winning. The jokes are often dark, yet presented with such good-natured sincerity that the films stays light. Now comes the Marvel comparison. Because this movie, much like they, and specifically Thor: Ragnarok, attempt to blend humor with serious drama -- sometimes within the same moment.

If you know me, you know that this is one of the things that bothered me most about Ragnarok (and the MCU of late in general). Because when you put humor and seriousness together, the result always seems to be that the humor undercuts the serious drama and renders it null and void. I won't say that Jojo Rabbit's drama is equally as effective as it would be as a straight drama, but it is, without a doubt, as effective as it meant to be. It can hit hard. I think this movie does two things that the MCU has yet to try to make the mixture work: One, that it is a dark comedy in the first place, so even in the "pure" humor scenes there is always an undercurrent of the horrors that occurred in Germany during WWII.

From the horrors, it admirably refuses to shy away.

And the second thing that makes the mixture work is that it's done at a higher rate of swapping tones. The MCU (I'm sorry to write it this many times) will usually have a serious moment that is capped by humor. Jojo Rabbit, within the same amount of run-time, will have switched from humor to serious, to humor, to serious, to humor again -- and I think most importantly, it ends the exchanges with seriousness. That lets the audience know that ultimately, it's the real things; the heart and the drama, that is most important in the film. That makes a world of difference.

On that note, Sam Rockwell stole the show for me, being his usually brilliantly hilarious self with a role catered to him, that melts into poignancy later on. Stephen Merchant also hits a perfect balance of tones. Archie Yates as Jojo's Hitler Youth friend is a scene-stealer. Johansson tips toward drama as she's meant to and performs her heart out. McKenzie has that special, sweetly tough quality about her, and it works wonderfully. Waititi limits himself, which sharpens his wild-card character. And 11-year-old Roman in his introductory role carries the movie, despite all the seasoned acting strength that surrounds him. The movie is about him, and the focus on Jojo, his mind, his arc and his struggles, is sharp.

And it does it all while being riotously funny!

I'm glad the berating of this movie for making fun of Nazis didn't last long. Turns out there's clearly nothing wrong with making fun of evil, and neither does this movie forget that evil is what it's making fun of. It doesn't pull its punches but also never loses sight of the light that it wants to promote while it beats down the darkness. Its laughs won't soon grow old, but neither will its tender heart. Jojo Rabbit is a brave little film.

Upcoming Movie Roundup - November

October was pretty slow, new-movie-wise. I spent most of my time catching up on movies like Dumbo and Yesterday, and then watching seasonal horror flicks as my nerves allowed. But the month started out fantastically with Joker, a beautifully complex movie that feels culturally important and closed off the season with a resounding bang. (Read my review here!)

Now Oscar season will gear up over November so there's a lot of movies that I think look objectively good but am simply not interested in. That's how it goes for me, and it's kinda sad. But there are a few that I definitely want to see so I'll probably stay busy. I just hope there's some truly great movies buried somewhere in there! What looks good to you this month?


Motherless Brooklyn
In theaters November 1st; R
Wow, how have I not heard of this one yet? Edward Norton stars. Edward Norton directs. Edward Norton writes. And it's a noir crime mystery movie set in the 50's and the PI has Tourettes. That sounds like the most awesome thing I've ever heard of! Reviews are sorta mixed so far, so maybe it's not amazing, but I don't think it'll have to be to be a winning movie in my book. The style looks epic, I like long movies, I like movies with singular visions, and I don't mind if noir mystery plots are boring or don't make sense as long as the characters are fascinating and unique. So. I'm sold.




Terminator: Dark Fate
In theaters November 1st; R
Here we go again. Just for fun, here's my ranking of Terminator movies so far: 1, 2, Salvation, 3, Genisys. This one I expect will go on the end, but who knows, maybe the returning cast will help it beat out that awful, un-spellable Genisys. Even though they're super old now. Ugh this movie just looks so lifeless. I just hope it's good to make fun of once it's streaming.




The Irishman
In theaters November 1st, on Netflix Nov 27th; R
Unless something changes I'll be going the Netflix route. I don't have a ton of interest in this but since it'll be on Netflix I'm sure I'll give it a chance. And I expect it to be good, even. Even with the de-aging which I still don't think is a good idea. It looks entertaining and stylish and has a cast that's worth seeing. I'm just neither excited nor uninterested.




Marriage Story
Limited theater release November 6th, on Netflix December 6th; R
The last thing. In the world. That I want to do. Is watch Scarlett Johansson and Adam Driver get a divorce and go through a custody battle. But it's going to be on Netflix in December, so I won't be able to resist, just because it is Scarlett Johansson and Adam Driver. Ugh. I would love it if the movie ended with them changing their minds and sticking it out for the sake of their kid and then realizing that was the best route after all.... but propaganda doesn't work that way.




Doctor Sleep
In theaters November 8th; R
A wonderful excuse to get my dad and other brother to watch The Shining with me! Also I'm always down for any movie with Ewan McGregor in the lead. It doesn't look exactly great -- certainly not the the same way The Shining was great -- but it does look quite fun in an action-y trippy, super dramatic way, and that's how I prefer my horror films.




Midway
In theaters November 8th; PG-13
I wasn't interested in this until I saw Patrick Wilson was in it. Now... I'm still pretty not interested. I mean sure it has a nice cast. Ed Skrein, Keean Johnson (who were in Alita together) Luke Evans, Woody Harrelson, Aaron Eckhart, Luke Kleintank of The Man in the High Castle, Dennis Quaid... Darren Criss... Nick Jonas... haha. It just looks so annoyingly shiny. You know, that "everything looks too clean and bland to be real" look? This movie has it worse than anything I've seen before. No style. Nothing that seems tangible. Even the people look airbrushed. I hate it. Maybe the battle's done really well, but I'll probably still hate it.




Last Christmas
In theaters November 8th;PG-13
I don't really care for Emilia Clarke too much, but she's definitely at her very best in rom-coms, and Henry Golding was great in Crazy Rich Asians but seemed to miss out of the full romance potential he has in that, so hopefully he makes up for it here. It's probably too much to hope that it'll be streaming by Christmas but I seriously doubt I'll go to the theaters for it. I guess I'll see it when I see it, Christmastime or no. I won't expect much but it looks enjoyable.




Honey Boy
Limited release November 9th; R
I'm actually, really, strangely eager to see this. I'm not super interested in Shia LaBeouf usually, so I think the main reason this has sparked my interest is the apparently strange mix of fiction and reality that it is. It doesn't claim to be based on a true story, but it is about Shia's life. So it's from his perspective but not in a way that claims fact. It is (hopefully) more about the way he saw the world and his dad and himself -- and I find that fascinating. I love movies that are from an individual perspective. Beyond that, I love how much of Shia I can see in both Lucas Hedges and Noah Jupe who play the "Shia" character at different ages. That kind of acting is reason enough to see it!




Danger Close
Limited release and streaming November 8th; R
A bunch of Australians and New Zealanders fight in the Vietnam war? Sounds pretty great, even if it is based on a true story. The trailer makes it look solid too. Like it has style and will be epic and dramatic. Starring Travis Fimmel, with Bullseye from The Punisher and Henry Bowers from IT.




Love is Blind
Limited release and streaming November 8th; NR
Haha, well, I feel like the plot is going to completely fall apart... but it's a romance movie starring Aiden Turner, so what can I say? I'll watch it. Never seen the girl, Shannon Tarbet before, but it also has Benjamin Walker, Chloe Sevigny, and Matthew Broderick.




Ford v Ferrari
In theaters November 15th; PG-13
This is guaranteed going to be one of those movies based on a true story where the true story isn't interesting enough to be cinematic by itself so a ton of embellishments and additions will go in, plus as much style and quality as the director can muster -- and it's still just going to boil down to an acting vehicle (Pun. Intended.) for Christian Bale and Matt Damon, so that they can compete over who gets nominated for best actor this year at the Oscars. James Mangold directing is the one thing about it that's remotely interesting to me.




The Lodge
Limited release November 15th; R
Ooo! A cult movie? With Riley Keough, Jaeden Martell and Richard Armitage? Sounds great as long as it's not too scary but who am I kidding it's probably too scary. Maybe I'll watch it next year for Halloween, I'm all horror-movied out at the moment.



Frozen II
In theaters November 22nd; PG
I'm just here to say, "No thanks."




A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood
In theaters November 22nd; NR
I guess Oscar season is about to be full-swing. This movie looks sweet and genuinely good, but I really wouldn't take much notice without the buzz, as I never watched Mr. Rogers. I bet the movie will be good and I bet that Tom Hanks will get the nom, especially since it's for supporting instead of lead. And I very well might see it someday too, and probably enjoy it if I do. But the chances of it being a special personally meaningful film to me and next to zero. That's just how it goes, sorry.




Knives Out
In theaters November 27th; PG-13
I like a good, smart whodunit, and I like all of Rian Johnson's original films, so I definitely want to give this one a chance. But I hear tell of how it's more interested in politics than storytelling and that makes me wary. I was afraid after Star Wars that Johnson would embrace what that movie made him to the general public -- a kind of movie-making troll whose movies you like if you're from one side just on principle, and aren't allowed to if you're from the other. I'd like to enjoy this. But I'm going to judge it as a film and a story. Not on what it says. Cast: Daniel Craig, Chris Evans, Jamie Lee Curtis, Michael Shannon, Toni Collette, Ana De Armas, LaKeith Stanfield, Jaeden Martell and Christopher Plummer.

Avengers: Endgame

Spoilers.

The least spoilery thing I can say to sum it up is: It's the same basic fan-servicing Marvel that we've been seeing recently -- but something's different, because I enjoyed watching it this time! But yeah, I'm not even going to try, friends. There are definitely spoilers here!

Endgame: the big secret. The actors knew nothing; no information was released during marketing; and fans go to extreme lengths to avoid spoilers before release day. Even I did it the "right" way and achieved about 97% blindness. And still. Not one thing was legitimately surprising. Maybe if I'd gotten an out of context spoiler, sure; but within the narrative of the movie, there were no shocks, or plot twists, or anything that you'd expect to be kept secret -- save for the mere two deaths. The OG Avengers use time-travel to bring back the dusted, defeat Thanos, and pass their torches to the next wave. Pleasantly straightforward.

I should probably mention that this doesn't help me look at Infinity War in an any better light. I wondered for a year if it might, but no.

Yep. I had fun. The time travel aspect was super comic book-y and cheesy in a nice way. They must steal the Infinity Stones from their past selves in previous movies and the Back to the Future Part II vibe was solid fodder for superheroing. Sometimes not used to potential; other times smart, neat, and fulfilling to the characters' individual stories. And the final showdown battle finally took this series to the scale at which they've always wanted to exist. Like comics brought to life. And when the ultra-high stakes come in (Thanos planning to kill them all) you instantly know the heroes are in for a satisfying win, so it's easy to settle back and soak it all up.

Tony is the most focused-on character. Fitting, since he has an ultimate end -- and started it all. He gets to marry Pepper, have a little girl, live a briefly happy life, have a restoring man-to-man with his dad, and then die a hero's death saving the whole universe. Nice. Cap was my personal favorite. Since time travel now exists, he lives out a normal life with Peggy. Nothing could be more satisfying. And I realize this is fan-service, with no veil or pretense attempted. I was primed to be okay with that fact by the continuous pulling out of the rug from under my hopes of simple enjoyment, and don't care if it worked. These were thoughtful ends that the characters deserved. About time they received them.

Throwback to when these two were the GOAT.

Even Natasha's death felt earned and meaningful. Her and Clint's friendship was one of the first things I fell in love with in these movies, and that scene they had together made it all conclude in a way that felt natural and right. The scene mirrors Gamora's Infinity War death, even with the same music, yet inverts aspects in profound ways. They fight each other out of love, which has never happened in the MCU before. The sad tone was uplifting, and the emotion unforced. Long-established and consistent characters dealt with respectfully. Strange to think that after using movie after movie to point forward to the next with relentless ferocity -- actual, final ends are given here.

But it's not all satisfying lovey-dovey goodbyes. There's Beer-Belly Thor, which is by far the worst iteration of Thor even conceived. The weight (unintended) of the abject failure he feels could have been so powerful were he not turned into a joke. The scene with his mother was nearly good even with that looming over it. On top of that, the "joke" isn't funny. I'd like to say nonsensical too, but I have no proof, so I'll just say it annoyed me -- especially after Thor was the greatest redeeming factor of Infinity War. I've always liked original Thor Thor best, so I wasn't expecting much... but that was just insulting.

Animated humanoids like Hulk and Thanos are impressive, but still fail to draw me in -- even in the way cyborgs and small CGI creatures do. 

I could devote a similar paragraph to Star-Lord, but I'll limit it to this: I hate, loathe, and despise what these films have turned Quill into. It makes me angry in a way that fictional things shouldn't, and this movie was the worst offender. The only mercy is his limited screen time. On the flip side, Nebula has never been more complex and involving. She continues to earn her spot on the team. Scott had the highest ups and the lowest downs: His reunion with Cassie had some of the most genuine MCU acting I've ever seen; and the time travel test was the "joke" that would never end. Yes indeed, the Marvel-brand jokes are still here, and bland as ever. It's impressive how deftly they skirted around Paul Rudd's comic abilities.

It's like the outline of the story had effort, with a nice and plain three act structure that kept the pace going, and thought-out building on past scenes -- but then the details were filled in by an MCU bot. Every tidbit and third line were a callback, and the rest stuffing. The dramatic scenes work by sheer force of will from the actors as they push real emotion through dialogue lacking any written personality. The Marvel-brand green screen and overly-CGI'd pastiness is at large too. The initial swell of the battle did have nice imagery with the portals though, and Vormir appeals, green-screened as it is. I genuinely liked one shot: the last one of Clint sitting in the water with the soul stone.

I thought it was nice how the movie was more or less bookended by farewell speeches from Tony. There is muddling around, but ultimately there's a simple, solid structure.

This movie exists because of past successes, like a greatest hit episode; no legs of its own to stand on, but enjoyable, nevertheless. Exactly what we expect from Marvel -- packaged as a tribute to those who got it started. The effort is nearly derailed by cringe jokes and mountains of CGI: There's lots of filler, lots of worthlessness, and lots that's recycled from the deep, deep, rut that Marvel has dug for itself. Sadly creative ruts aren't a factor for Marvel anymore. Their oodles of cash isn't earned due to quality craft, but to calculated marketing; and with these loyal fans, and the ability to fabricate and promote empty secrets, any kind of slop could've played on that screen and made the same amount of money.

Fortunate, then, that the slop they played for us was a relatively good time, made for pure, widespread enjoyment, and was relatively respectful; serving founding characters with one last dose of genuine progress and a hearty farewell. Almost not slop at all, at heart. Despite shortcomings and extended lapses into stupidity, at least there's a story here, used for the satisfying completion of the journeys of long-beloved characters. Despite everything, I'm glad I got to see the Avengers assemble for one last hurrah.

Upcoming Movie Roundup - April

Happy Spring, happy April, happy April Fool's Day, and most importantly, happy Easter and Resurrection Sunday!

In March I saw my one must-see, that also happened to be my most-anticipated film of 2018 -- Ready Player One! It didn't hit the highest heights that my imagination hoped it had the potential for, but it was every bit as fun as the book, boasting the same greatness and the same flaws alike. And the cast is perfection. I'll write a review soon, but for now I'm listening to a playlist of the music and relishing the experience.

Still have interest in Thoroughbreds and Isle of Dogs. I need to get better at actually going out and seeing these non-blockbuster releases in theaters. Lean on Pete also hasn't hit a theater near me yet, but looks like it's expanding this month. I'm on Easter break this week, so maybe I should do a serious movie splurge.

What did you see in March? And what looks good in April?


A Quiet Place
Apr 6th; PG-13
My second-most anticipated movie of the year after Ready Player One. After I see this I'll have to come up with some new most-anticipated for the rest of the year's eight months. John Krasinski directs, and stars with his real-life wife Emily Blunt, and I'm sold on that alone. Plot-wise I don't want to know much, but horror/thriller vibes are blatantly obvious, which I'm definitely cool with. Something about this movie reminds me of 10 Cloverfield Lane, and I'm not even worried that influence will make my expectations too high because the movie has been getting rave reviews so far.




You Were Never Really Here
Apr 6th; R
Joaquin Phoenix looks intense. This movie looks intense. It's probably good but it's also probably not exactly my kind of movie.




The Endless
Apr 6th; NR
The color grading make it look like it's on the cheaper side of low-budget indie movies, but the scifi/Lovecraft thing it has going is undeniably appealing. The scifi side of it doesn't look cheap either. I'll be very interested to watch if I ever see it floating around on a streaming site somewhere.




Rampage
Apr 13th; PG-13
Ugh, this looks so dumb. Not that it appears to be trying to be anything else, but it's just not appealing to me. I'd rather watch Skull Island again, or Jumanji. If this movie winds up being dumb but genuinely good and fun like those movies, I will be very surprised. But still, I'll probably watch it at some point, if only to roll my eyes at it.




Borg vs McEnroe
Apr 13th; R
Not that it sounds boring to watch Shia LaBeouf get beat in an epic game of tennis by a Swedish fellow, but to be perfectly honest, the main appeal of this movie for me is that the Swedish side of things is done in Swedish -- so it's half a foreign language film. I don't think I've ever seen Stellan Skarsgård act in his native language. (This trailer isn't green-band approved -- language warning.)




Marrowbone
Apr 13th; NR
It's a creepy horror movie set in what looks like the 50's, and it has Charlie Heaton in it, so I guess I have to watch it. The nice thing is, it's releasing on Amazon -- so probably not the greatest quality film, but that okay by me. Maybe it won't be too scary.




Avengers: Infinity War
Apr 27th; PG-13
Oh yeah, I forgot about this one! lol.
Here's the thing about this movie: I don't care.
I'm going to go see it, but I'm not particularly excited about watching all my favorite superheroes come together and not get enough screentime in a 2-hour, 40-min movie, just so that some drama can be milked and one or two people can get killed off in what I assume will be the most forced, senseless, and irritating ways possible. So sue me. When the ads boast about how Marvel has been building to this for 10 years it irks me, because of how dismissive it is of previous Marvel films -- films that were sometimes this close to being great apart from their shared universe but perhaps weren't simply because they only needed to serve to sell the next film. Even this film is just going to point to next year's Avengers 4. That kind of mindset makes me want to quit with Marvel altogether, but I guess I'm in too deep now. Spider-Man and Bucky are my excuse.




The House of Tomorrow
Apr 27th; NR
Aw, this looks cute. Like a retry of The Space Between Us for Asa Butterfield, but not ridiculous and painfully awkward. I guess he likes playing naive outsiders getting introduced to the world. This one also has Nick Offerman, Ellen Burstyn and the Second Edition Wolff -- Alex Wolff. Are he and Nat twins, because I seriously cannot tell them apart? *research* No. They act so similarly too though -- it's like Nat went back in time and switched the mole on his chin to his lip so he could make more teenage movies. Anyways, this movie. Looks neat. Will check out.

Upcoming Movie Roundup - March

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!

Hail, Caesar!

Essentially a day-in-the-life movie about a film studio producer and "fixer," Hail, Caesar! follows Eddie Mannix (a guy whose name and vocation is true to real life -- who knows about the rest) played by Josh Brolin as he goes busily to and fro various movie sets, smoothing wrinkles and covering up scandals.

Hail, Hollywood!

Set inside of Hollywood's golden age of bright cheesiness, 1951, this latest caper from the Coen Brothers has gobs and gobs of distraction on it's surface. So much so that you might not even notice that it actually is about something underneath all that cheese and glam. Mannix is mulling over the idea of leaving his hard job of long hours for something else that is tempting, but he feels is lacking in some way. Then one of the studio's biggest actors (and star of their new epic "Hail Caesar," a story of Christ told from the perspective of a Roman soldier), Baird Whitlock, (George Clooney) goes missing! He's actually been kidnapped by commies -- a bunch of Hollywood writers who came up with a ransom scheme to get the money they believe they deserve. They sit around and fill Baird's head with communism while Mannix continues to take one problem at a time.

This one thing at a time attitude is where the distraction comes in. Every time Mannix visits a different film set, we get a lengthy view into the world of filmmaking, which may or may not be your cup of tea, but it sure was mine. Water sets, tap dancing scenes, cowboy flicks, period drama romances, all with their own thing going on and their own problems. Played for comedy, and really quite amusing. I was almost disappointed at times when we didn't get to see a second take -- or the third take -- and instead had to move along. Here we are introduced to the film's wide spread of big-name talent, most of whom are really no more than a fun cameo. Like Jonah Hill's very amusing part, or Ralph Fiennes' humorously refined but irritated director. Everyone is some stereotype or another. Scarlett Johansson was unexpected in a part that reminded me slightly of Lena Lamont of Singing in the Rain. Tilda Swinton's duel-role was brilliant. And Channing Tatum was... well, more then I expected.

Hail to the guy who leads?

Some of the characters felt unnecessary if you think about it. But, at the same time, I wonder if you go even deeper, would they all eventually make some kind of sense? I certainly get the feeling that the film is very purposeful; more purposeful than meets the eye. To get to the theme and the message of the story I had to go deeper than I expected to considering the style of the storytelling and the fun and quirky atmosphere, but there it is. Maybe Tilda Swinton didn't need to play one, let alone two characters, maybe she did, but some of these characters do play into a purpose, and drive home a rather abstract, but interesting idea.

Of course this is most obviously found in our lead Mannix. Josh Brolin hits the perfect key with this guy, by the way -- as he always does. He's a great lead, and the character is a powerful guy; he has respect and authority, but he also is very religious going to confession every day. He tries very hard to make people happy, especially his wife (Zelda Fitz-- I mean Alison Pill) who wants him to quit smoking. He seems very much like the boss, but of course he has a boss of his own, albeit an absent one. Then there's Baird. He's not a really likable character and Clooney plays him well in that vein. He's a huge actor. Mention his name and people go "Ohhh!" But he's an empty coconut if ever there was one. He has an influential voice but his words are given to him -- by a script, or by a commie, or couple hard slaps upside the head. He's importance in on the surface only.

Hail to the guy who looks like the leader?

Then there's the guy who you wouldn't think is important but really is. That's Alden Ehrenreich as Hobie Doyle. Hobie is a smaller-time lead; the cowboy guy. He's always in the pursuit of doing something right, whether it be a handstand on a horse, or, when he's moved over to the posh romantic drama, saying that line just as he's supposed to. Maybe he doesn't have the talent for certain things, but he's a dedicated worker and does everything he's given to do the very best that he can. And in the end that devotion makes him a pivotal character to the plot. Ehrenreich of course is a delight to watch which helps even more -- he has that screen presence that makes everything he does twice as interesting, and then he actually does quite a lot of interesting things! He's a dedicated performer himself, learning those lasso tricks. And he was the movie's scene-stealer, hands down.

And Mannix himself, as high up as he is, is only a background worker. The movie studio would fall apart without him, but he gets very little of the glory. However he (and we) discover the importance of the way things work, and get a reinvigorated belief in the importance of the work being done. (A little bit of a love-letter to film never hurts!) The movie's multiple layers of the movie within the movie is neat and draws some interesting parallels, but at the same time, there is a jumbled aspect going on that is difficult to see through, with all those distractions of so many films being placed together in this one. I was impressed at how neatly everything tied together though, in the end. I expected it to be more pointless going in.

If only it were so simple. If only it were so simple. If only...

I can certainly understand criticism of this film, as it is very unusual, and not what one might naturally expect it to be. It has the plot of, I guess, I popcorn flick, with it's bright-and-breezy entertainment qualities, and what seems like a main arc of trying to recover the missing actor. That's something that could very easily go action-y in the final act, but instead the film at the surface stays the same; light and inconsequential. Underneath builds the mildly abstract and not exactly prominent ideas of power, authority, and dedication that is driven by characters; characters, who, for the most part, don't get it any more than we do. For them, it's just another eventful day. But it was an important day, and this film does have some interesting things to say, in typical, understated Coen fashion. It may not a be a masterpiece, but if you want more from it than a plethora of quirky performances, hearty laughs and light, colorful entertainment, it's there for you to find.

Captain America: Civil War

Spoilers!

Divided, they fall.

After an undeserved guilt trip, Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) worries that the Avengers need to be put in check. He is surprised to find that if, say, an alien army attacks New York, or a robot AI army tries to lift an entire city into the sky and drop it again, people die in the wake. So, he signs a document called the Sokovia Accords, putting himself under the command of General Ross (William Hurt) and forces the other Avengers to either sign as well, or retire from their crime-fighting ways; or become outlaws. Steve Rogers (Chris Evans), however, is Captain America, and as such sees no wisdom in allowing himself to be controlled by someone who may someday order him to do something wrong, or deny him permission to do something right. He and about half the Avengers refuse to sign.

Rising tension between the two sides explodes when Bucky Barnes (Sebastian Stan) appears on the grid and everyone wants a piece of him; Steve, the ever-loyal friend to help him, new addition T'Challa (Chadwick Boseman) for revenge, Ross (and thus Tony) because he's dangerous, and also the villain Zemo (Daniel Brühl) who framed him for the UN bombing in the first place. Zemo plans to destroy the Avengers by leading them to destroy each other.

Anthony and Joe Russo return for another Captain America movie featuring the cast of an Avenger movie.

It's the year of the "hero vs. hero" story line, and Civil War set out to make it realistic. It is -- a little bit too much. Superheroes, practically by definition, are people who can act outside the law and remain good, but this movie challenges that, putting our heroes under the harsh judgment of our reality. The result is that the plot is not fundamentally conducive to the genre. It's like if Pirates of the Caribbean 5 were a courtroom drama where Jack stands trail for all his misdeeds. The film struggles to find footing at the beginning, forced to scrounge around for some contrived situations to justify the plot; some that sacrifice character and sense in the effort.

At first Iron Man is only antagonistic and it works alright. He was pressured and emotionally coerced into believing he needed someone to put him in check, and imposed his beliefs on everyone else. But no matter what that self-righteous, cruel, finger-pointing woman by the elevator wrongly says, Tony is not a murderer, and I hate that they made him buy into that lie. He created Ultron, yes, but ultimately, Ultron was an intelligent being that made decisions for himself. What he chose to do isn't on Tony. And that's something Tony would know if the movie didn't require otherwise. Most of the characters have the drama work for them -- as it should -- but someone had to be made the villain, and Tony got the short straw in a lot that shouldn't have existed.

After five films, Tony is no stranger to putting himself in check, but suddenly now he needs someone else to do it for him?

Eventually it reaches a point where if they'd have just stopped and talked about things for a few seconds everything would have been cleared up. Cap has evidence that Bucky was framed and they attempt to go off after Zemo. But Tony and co. (Rhodey (Don Cheadle), Romanoff (Scarlett Johansson), and Vision (Paul Bettany) with the help of T'Challa, aka Black Panther, and some kid named Peter (Tom Holland)) are under orders to arrest Cap and co. (Bucky, Sam (Anthony Mackie), Wanda (Elizabeth Olsen), Barton (Jeremy Renner), and newly recruited Scott Lang (Paul Rudd)), and they battle it out instead. This was one of the most fun sequences in the movie though, so of course they couldn't just bypass it with a simple exchange of information. Still I reserve the right to be annoyed that that's all it would have taken.

After that Tony discovers the truth for himself and goes off to help Cap and Bucky. Great, right? They team up and prevail against the villain, right? It's a glorious reuniting of friends almost torn apart joining together and putting aside their differences to fight evil, right? Nope -- instead, the villain reveals his plan to them, and shows video footage of Bucky as the Winter Soldier, under the influence of mind control, killing Tony's parents. Tony flips back over in his rage and actually becomes a villain. Not just a misguided and uninformed antagonist -- as irking as that was -- but a villain, uncharacteristically intent on causing harm to the innocent. There are so many things wrong with this; I hardly know where to begin.

It did endear Bucky to me a lot more, so it's arguably worth it. I wasn't ever a huge Iron Man fan anyway. And I'm sure he'll be back to hero status in no time...

Tony knows that Bucky killed his parents because of mind control. And this is not a new issue; Barton killed several people under mind control in The Avengers, but once he came back, no one batted an eyelash. They said it wasn't him, and they were right. Here Cap says the same, and Tony doesn't care, trying to kill Bucky in revenge. (Yet he didn't even blame anyone for Rhodey's injury?) They pick and choose what pushes Tony's buttons based on where the plot wanted to go, instead of the other way around as it should be. He knows he's innocent and he doesn't care -- but not killing innocents was exactly his whole agenda in the first place!

In the end Cap defeats Iron Man physically, but it's really Zemo who wins the day. He didn't succeed in making them kill each other, but he divided them, and the results of Steve's attempts to heal the breach are left ambiguous. Also, it's sad that Zemo's family dies, but it doesn't justify his villainy; it makes it a double standard. He murders in order to orchestrate murder, and his revenge is directed at the people who stopped the one really responsible. These plot lines are the foundation of the movie, and are almost nothing but nonsensical hogwash, and I couldn't buy it. This whole movie was contrived into existence, and characters were bent and broken to its whims all for a nice, swift kick of maddeningly lazy drama that moved nowhere before being resolved by nothing.

I guess one thing this movie portrays well is the folly of revenge.

Remember that heartbreaking moment in the trailer, where Cap seems to have abandoned his friendship with Tony? "He's my friend" he says of Bucky. And Tony replies sadly, "So was I." I don't know if the same take was used in the trailer and the finished film, but the difference the context made was incredible. Once we see that Cap is at that moment keeping Tony from committing emotionally driven unjustified murderous revenge on his friend, that "So was I" comes across in the exact opposite way. Suddenly Cap is the one we feel for, ever the man who will stand up for what he knows is right, and has his friends turn on him for it. That's noble.

And Bucky -- the movie's main focus in on Bucky, and he was the main redeeming factor that kept the film afloat. Bucky regrets the things he was forced to do, and even though he doesn't blame himself, he takes himself out of the equation, giving up on living a life he deserves until he knows he can live it without inadvertently putting others in danger. Like Iron Man, he recognizes that his existence is dangerous, but he takes it upon himself to prevent that danger. That is noble. That is what superheroes do. Iron Man's only spark of nobility here is only perhaps in his motivations of wanting to keep people safe. His actions do a poor job of reflecting that desire if it's true though, and I wonder if really he was only interested in dulling his misguided guilt. In past movies he's been the noble character, but not here, and that doesn't sit right.

So -- that concludes the main point of what is wrong with this movie. On to what is good. Here's to my ability to express it in a more condensed fashion!

Next, I need to devote a whole section to Spider-Man, (Forget condensed!) because his part in this film felt like a whole different film. He didn't really fit, but I was glad he was there. The scenes he has with Iron Man were the only times in the movie that I actually liked Iron Man, and the fight sequence at the airport was fun (uncharacteristically so) because of him -- and Ant-Man. I knew Tom Holland was going to be my favorite Spider-Man, but he didn't let me down even one bit in his short amount of screen time. He tell his origins with a mere "It's a long story," and explains his version of "with great power comes great responsibility" earnestly and simply, like a teenager would. His place in the movie was obviously contrived, but that didn't dampen the exciting appeal of his presence at all.

But even when Spidey is absent the fights are still the most effective distractions from the occasionally insulting drama the movie gives. The choreography is just as great as The Winter Soldier, and though there isn't exactly an equivalent of the elevator scene, Civil War makes up for it by having lots more fights, and lots of fights featuring Bucky. Bucky was great wherever he went. The stairwell fight and the sequence when Zemo activates Bucky stand out as the best and most memorable. I did miss Cap though. It was his movie in name, but he was slightly overshadowed by the long list of a-list co-stars whose characters had bigger issues than Cap did. Cap's problems didn't carry as much weight as they should because all he had to do was the right thing, and that's the one thing he always does. It's why we love him.

Cap trying to hold the movie together...

Acting all around was as good as ever, and not hindered by the plot's often confused and illogical nature. Even Robert Downey Jr. pushed a very impressive performance through his character's sludge. Everyone I've previously mentioned had a solid moment to display their chops, and so did Martin Freeman, Emily VanCamp, and even Frank Grillo in a disappointingly short-lived stint as post-Winter Soldier Crossbones. Vision and Wanda's dynamic was quite strange and oddly cute. Not much was new with Hawkeye when he wasn't given much to do but left a mark anyway. Chadwick Boseman makes a great first impression as Black Panther. And Bucky is steadily and ever-increasing in my affections. This movie's moments of organic drama were almost exclusively his. (Any chance he'll make an appearance in Black Panther, you think?

Marvel films at this point have become well-oiled machines, and it's beginning to show in less-than-appealing ways. They know how to cater to an audience, and know what kind of moments will serve fans the most and stoke their fandom fires. In the moment, it's a blast, but it's not a good thing at heart. The stories are becoming less and less personal as a result; and more and more familiar. Civil War goes through the motions of what made The Winter Soldier and Age of Ultron successful, doling out high-caliber, production-line thrills, but slacking off when it came to the stamp of originality, confident that the heroes turning on each other would be enough. I prefer a handcrafted story that respects character foremost, even if it has flaws in the execution.

This movie didn't seem personal to anyone besides its characters.

Civil War is a hand-book movie; a collection of high-energy action scenes, fan-favorite characters, amusing stock jokes, and heavy-handed drama that occasionally bends characters to suit it, but only really works when it happens to suit the characters. It has a lot of good -- even great -- elements to it, but when they're compiled together, the puzzle is not only missing a few pieces, but it is also several different pictures altogether. Half what I was afraid it was going to be, and half what I hoped it would be; but, slowly, the things that were done wrong or lazily are offending my sensibilities less and less, as I remember the good fondly.

I doubt I will ever not notice the plot holes and contrivances that allowed for this film's existence, but I know that I will sit through them again for the parts that catered to my action-loving side and appealed to my love of character. This film is not the ground-breaking, tide-turning event it wanted to be and thinks it is, but, as a Marvel film, and as a Captain America film, and as a preview of what a Russo Brothers Avenger film might be like -- not to mention an introduction film for Black Panther and Spider-Man, and a continuation of the Winter Soldier's story -- it's got something of everything. Civil War is so packed with so much that it could hardly have done anything that would've neutralized its addictive fun, or seriously dampened the effect of the chaotically, colorfully intense and exciting blockbuster that it is.

Upcoming Movie Roundup - April

Last month I surprised myself, and saw a movie in theaters that I didn't even include in my March roundup. I was planning to mention 10 Cloverfield Lane, but decided against it just as I was about to watch the trailer, because I realized I didn't have anything to say about it. I didn't know anything about it, and didn't want to -- I didn't even want to see the trailer -- I just had an interest in seeing the movie. So one night I was like, "Hey guys, wanna watch Cloverfield?" and my brothers were like, "Sure." So we did. And once it was over I was like, "Should we go see 10 Cloverfield Lane tomorrow?" and they were like, "Heck yes." So we did. And you can read my spoiler-free review of it here, but honestly you shouldn't unless you've seen it already. I'll just say that it's the kind of movie that reminds me of why I love movies in the first place. So I guess I should have mentioned it, but at the same time, I'm glad I didn't -- and didn't look into it too much.

Usually looking through the new releases of the month introduces me to a few lesser known releases that pique my interest, but not so much this time. And the bigger releases aren't hugely exciting either. You never know, but right now it looks like I may be saving my money for Civil War!

My thoughts on one of these is not true -- for April Fool's Day -- guess which one?


Hardcore Henry
April 8th: R
It stars my personal favorite Sharlto Copley, it's exclusively shot from first person perspective, and it's currently getting lots of praise for it's unique and fun non-stop and innovative action and impressively involving plot line. It is the only movie on this list that I'm currently planning to see, but the only problem is that the rating is too much for me. So I'll wait until I can watch it cut, when I plan to enjoy the heck out of it!




High Strung
April 8th: PG
About a ballet dancer and a violin player who "don't fit in" and go up against the odds, this looks like a nice, appropriate dancing movie with a slight music-twist that will be very appealing to fans of the genre. It looks predictable, a little sentimental, and not terribly deep, but hey -- that's the way these kinds of film's work best.




The Jungle Book
April 15th: PG
The new, live action Jungle Book. Well, so far it's been a lot of showmanship. It's got a good-looking cast, and obviously takes much pride in the appearance of its realistically animated jungle animals. (Am I the only one wondering why they're so disproportionately large jungle animals though?) This trailer shows that the film seems to actually have a plot, and there's a lot of hype, but I still need to be convinced that it's gonna be, you know, a good movie.




The Green Room
April 15th; R
"Strong brutal graphic violence" the rating explanation says. I've never seen a violence rating look so foreboding before! Anyway this one's a horror film staring Patrick Stewart as the villain, and among others, Anton Yelchin and Imogen Poots as his victims. I like Anton Yelchin a lot, but this one looks too scary for me. I'm not pulled that far into the horror genre! It's getting high reviews though, so it looks like a hit for those who are...




Paradox
April 15th(limited); NR
A murder mystery with time travel? Sounds like my kind of mash-up. There's not much to find out about this film (it doesn't even have a rating yet) and it doesn't have to look of a really great film, but if it delivers on the promises it makes in the trailer and is decent enough, and can definitely see myself watching it someday.




The Huntsman: Winter's War
April 22nd; PG-13
Uuuuuhhh. Well, at least there's no Kristen Stewart! That means it has to be better than the other one, right? Honestly this prequel to Snow White and the Huntsman does look better. It focuses on more interesting characters and doesn't have the pretense of following a fairy tale. Of course since it's a prequel, we know more or less how it will end -- with the villain undefeated -- which will probably be unsatisfying. Anyway, even if it is better, that by no means guarantees it'll be good.



APRIL FOOL! I lied about lying about one of the movies. I know. I'm such an evil April Fools genius. Or I'm just lazy. One of those. Happy April Fools Day everyone! Don't write with strange pens and be sure to check under your seat cushions!

Upcoming Movie Roundup - February

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.



How's the month of February looking for you?

5 Female Characters Tag

Rules

1.) List 5 of your favorite female characters (book or screen).

2.) Tagging other people is optional

3.) If you are tagged link back to the person that tagged you.

4.) Link back to Revealed In Time

Choose one character from each category:

1.) Protagonist

2.) Villain

3.) Superhero

4.) That I would want to be friends with

5.) That I wish had better development

Thanks to Ivy Miranda of Revealed In Time for tagging me for this! I had a lot of fun deciding on and writing about these ladies.

Protagonist:

Mattie Ross

Played by Hailee Steinfeld

In True Grit

This goes for the book Mattie too, but to me Steinfeld's portrayal of her was so close to perfection that the two are pretty much indistinguishable. What I love about Mattie is her no-nonsense attitude and tightly focused attentions. She has one goal for the whole story, and will not be pulled off into rabbit trails or be otherwise dissuaded from pushing stubbornly on towards that goal. She is extremely mature for her age in some ways, but in others is embarrassingly naive. Like all great protagonist, she is brave and kind. She is very guarded, but with the few glimpses we get into her heart, we can see that it is full and deep. Though she is not a traditional protagonist you'd expect out of a fourteen-year-old girl, nor the traditional protagonist of a western tale, she is easy to understand, and easy to love and cheer for.

Villain:

Daisy Buchanan

Played by Carey Mulligan

In The Great Gatsby

(Spoilers) It's a strong word to call her, but one of the main principles I base my love of The Great Gatsby on is that Daisy is its villain -- not Tom Buchanan, nor George Wilson. Daisy on the surface is a beautiful, alluring woman who is good at making people like her, and making it seem effortless. Underneath, she is as cold and as selfish as they come. She lets Jay destroy himself in his pursuit of her without a care. She is the indirect cause of his death (and the direct cause of Myrtle's) but never confesses and even never appears to feel remorse. As Fitzgerald says about her and Tom, "...they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness..." Only Tom was misled. Daisy knew everything, and everything that she was doing, and she did it all anyway. She is incredibly fascinating to me. Carey Mulligan in the 2013 adaptation makes a fantastic effort of portraying her villainous complexities, but the character wasn't written for the screen properly, and doesn't reach the heights of the Fitzgerald's Daisy.

Superhero

Natasha Romanoff

Played by Scarlett Johansson

In Iron Man 2, The Avengers, The Winter Solider, and Age of Ultron

She doesn't exactly have superpowers, but she is still absolutely a superhero. After appearing in four movies she collected an impressive amount of development, doing a great job in overcoming her exclusively eye-candy role in Iron Man 2, and with her last film landed solidly at the top of my favorite female superheroes. Her Winter Soldier version gives her lots of likability and normality, but Joss Whedon's version of her is my favorite -- she's like a femme fatale, playing the bad guys with smooth elegance, and you're never quite sure if that heart on her sleeve is the real one or not. I love that she has moments of yearning for a family, but is too loyal to her job of saving the world to abandon it to satisfy those desires. I love her graceful, no nonsense hand-to-hand fighting style, and I adore that she can handle herself with all the guys, but still acts like a lady.

That I would want to be friends with:

Katniss Everdeen

Played by Jennifer Lawrence

In The Hunger Games, Catching Fire, and Mockingjay

I know. It's a strange pick. Katniss is basically the complete opposite of everything you'd associate with being friendly. She even says of herself that she's not good at making friends. I don't doubt that if I lived in her world and we had a chance at being friends that it wouldn't actually happen, but we're using hypothetical's here, and the word "want." Aside from my low chances of hypothetically getting into the affections of the great Miss Everdeen, the fact is that Katniss is one of the best people anyone could ever be friends with. Think of the people she is friends with, and how devotedly loyal she is to every single one. She may not come to care for a person easily, but once she does she cares with every last drop she has to give. Plus, I like to imagine that we'd get along. She's a very open and honest person with her friends, and if someone is honest with me, I find it easy to follow suit. And honesty without fear of losing the friendship is an amazing thing.

That I wish I had better development:

Tauriel

Played by Evangeline Lily

In The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, and The Battle of the Five Armies

This was definitely the hardest category for me, because when I think a character has bad development, I automatically don't like them. I chose Tauriel, because I wanted to like her. I really, really, did. And some of the time I was able to. Evangeline Lily made her charming and sincere in her way, and really good at destroying orcs with style. But the hints at her romance with Legolas were weird; and her full-on romance with Kili even more so. Even her relationship with Thranduil was odd. She simply did not feel like a true Middle-Earth lady. She only served as ways and means of developing other characters, moving the plot along, and expanding the run time. Too bad, but even so annoyingly developed as she was, she wasn't distractingly bad, because the movies often matched her level pretty well.

I will tag:
Lizzie
Rissi 
Hamlette
Olivia 

And since tagging is optional, I'm sure that "stealing" is encouraged, so if you want to do it -- please do!