February started out with the surprise release of The Cloverfield Paradox on Netflix. I had already dubbed it "The Month of Scifi," so unexpectedly springing one of the year's most anticipated scifi movies at us was perfect beginning. Of course the movie itself wasn't perfect, and divided opinions among fans. Still I enjoyed it very much. Read my review here!
Then I went to the theater to see Black Panther, but still didn't manage to see The Death Cure. Sadness. Black Panther was a Marvel movie, and did basically everything that entails. Didn't hate it, didn't love it. Read my review here!
We started the Netflix TV show Altered Carbon (and are currently two eps from the end) and I was pretty disappointed, because while the world is nice and scifi, and it had a noir-type premise, the feel of it is very normal for TV shows today, and I'm not finding it terribly compelling. Whenever I finish maybe I'll review it and see if I can figure out and express exactly how it fails.
But no matter, because there is Mute. The trailer made this Netflix film look less noir than Altered Carbon, but that was because it didn't reveal any of the plot, but it turns out the plot is noir through and through, and I loved it. Mute is exactly what I mean when I say "I like the scifi-noir genre," and after worrying me with terrible critic reviews, blew me away and is currently my favorite film of the year. Read my spoiler-free review here!
March has five Fridays, so there's lots to get to -- I'll probably keep it brief. There's one movie at least that I absolutely must see no matter what, and lots more that looks interesting in various degrees. Hope y'all had a great February! What did you see that you liked? And what's looking good this month?
Death Wish
Mar 2nd; R
Bruce Willis action movie -- violence and guns and frontier justice! Probably won't be super great since it's a remake, but there's no denying the appeal.
Goldstone
Mar 2nd; R
This one says it's a noir. Is noir making a comeback? Looks like a mystery that is both intense and easy going at the same time. Nice tone and cinematography in the trailer. Neon plus the Australian Outback. Very neat combo. Good reviews too.
The Vanishing of Sidney Hall
Mar 2nd; R
The writing and mystery elements of this one is more interesting to me than the cast, but it stars Logan Lerman and Elle Fanning. Lerman is a writer who disappears without a trace to get away from the unpleasant fame following the publishing of his controversial book. Bad reviews so far, but considering Mute I'll be paying attention anyway...
A Wrinkle in Time
Mar 9th; PG
I never read the book, and from the looks of things I should put more priority on that than on going out to see this kids scifi/fantasy adventure. It looks like the sort of thing that I won't be able to resist watching eventually though, even if it isn't anything special.
Gringo
Mar 9th; R
There's some weird, crazy things going down in this trailer. Dark comedy, so that's great if it's done well, and a great cast too. Joel Edgerton, Charlize Theron, David Oyelowo -- and Sharlto Copley!
The Hurricane Heist
Mar 9th; PG-13
Yes, this movie is going to be stupid. And yes, that's half of why I absolutely must watch it. Even if I didn't my brother would make me because he loves stupid disaster movies. And this one has a heist that the heroes must thwart at the same time! But the other half of why I'll watch it is Toby Kebbell. So yes -- I'm there.
Thoroughbreds
Mar 9th; R
This isn't really the kind of plot I'd usually pay much attention to, but this will be the last film of the late Anton Yelchin's, so it worth mentioning on that alone. Also Olivia Cooke playing a sociopath is weirdly appealing.
Tomb Raider
Mar 16th; PG-13
Chances of this movie being good are... not good. Really very not good. But it'll probably have a decent run anyway, and action flicks can only be so bad -- as long as there's action, ya know? I'll watch it for cheap someday probably, just because of it's mainstream status. Alicia Vikander may elevate it a bit, but the trailer looks like a video game, and I'm not feeling it.
Journey's End
Mar 16th; R
WWI drama starring Sam Claflin, Asa Butterfield and Paul Bettany. Looks like a well made film.
7 Days in Entebbe
Mar 16th; PG-13
A telling of a true story where Israeli Special Forces rescue hostages of a terrorist plane hijacking in the 70's. It ends well, so that's nice, and stars Daniel Brühl and Rosamund Pike -- but as the terrorists. So I guess don't get too attached? Eddie Marsan appears to be the main good guy.
Pacific Rim Uprising
Mar 23rd; PG-13
John Boyega's turn in the seat -- er, turn to share the seat -- with... Scott Eastwood? Okay. Whatever, I think I get how this works, but I haven't actually seen the first one due to a distaste for Charlie Hunnam. But I did survive Legend of the Sword, so maybe now I should bite the bullet and see what this is all about. This trailer is certainly under no delusion about what kind of a movie it is.
Unsane
Mar 23rd; R
Is Claire Foy crazy? Or is she not? That's the biggest reason to see this right there. The curiosity. Anyway, this looks like a very effective thriller. The wide angle lenses and tall aspect ratio alone make it feel so intense and claustrophobic.
Isle of Dogs
Mar 23rd; PG-13
Stop-motion? I love stop-motion! Wes Anderson? I love Wes Anderson! I haven't seen his other stop-motion endeavor because I'm too cheap to buy the DVD apparently, and it isn't streaming anywhere I use. So I should consider going to the theater for this one I think. Or else I may never get the chance!
Ready Player One
Mar 29th; PG-13
Yes, I'm ready. Heck, I've been ready for TWO YEARS ever since I first finished the book and looked up the cast and director. Tye Sheridan in the lead, Simon Pegg and Mark Rylance supporting. And now there's Ben Mendelsohn as the villain and Olivia Cook as the love-interest. And Steven Spielberg directing a movie from a book that was inspired by the works of Steven Spielberg! Honestly the book wasn't even that great, but it has such great cinematic potential I'm stoked to see what they do with it. Naysay all you like. It might crash and burn, but I'm going to be excited and hopeful anyway! Just don't change the ending...
Lean on Pete
Mar 30th; R
Aw, this looks like such a great film. Coming of age, indie adventure and drama, horses... based on a book too, which puts even more confidence in the story quality. I definitely want to see this.
Showing posts with label Sharlto Copley. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sharlto Copley. Show all posts
Thursday, March 1, 2018
Saturday, April 1, 2017
Upcoming Movie Roundup - April
March's highlight was %100 Kong: Skull Island for me with a visual feast of epic fun, buffet-style. (Read my very pleased review here!) I also saw Beauty and the Beast which was only just as good as it needed to be. (Read my review here to see where it went wrong and what it got right.) I still want to see Life, but a theater trip for it is currently up in the air.
Iron Fist was released on Netflix, and we watched it slowly and just finished it, more than a little disappointed. But there was a great superhero show after all -- in February's Legion. It recently wrapped up every bit as well as it began: appropriately crazy, beautiful, and terrifying.
This month I'm feeling a little cynical towards all the new releases, with no must-sees -- but at the same time, plenty of potential. So time will tell if my cynicism is warranted or not! What looks good to you this month, and what was your highlight from March? Let me know in the comments!
Colossal
Apr 7th; R
It's definitely an original idea that I would think would have to potential to be funny, but it's hard to tell whether the potential is fulfilled or not -- the trailer itself isn't funny at all, and the gimmick may cause more problems than it does provide humor. The trailer gives away a lot, but I still have questions about the mechanics of the premise. I don't care for Anne Hathaway at all, but she's balanced out by Dan Stevens who I'd watch in anything. Plus, however much like a rom-com it appears to be, it's still technically a sci-fi too, and that helps a lot. Mild interest here.
Gifted
Apr 7th; PG-13
This movie is full-on drama which is probably the least appealing genre out there to me, and yet it still looks interesting -- and not even because it starts Chris Evans. In fact, the thing that really grabbed my attention when I saw first saw the trailer was Jenny Slate playing a serious, apparently likeable character! I really want to see her do that. The story is just about as interesting as a drama can get, but I can foresee cliches and sappiness as well; it all depends on how it's told.
The Fate of the Furious
Apr 14th; PG-13
I caught up on the Fast and the Furious franchise before the 7th one came out and still didn't bother to see it in theaters, so that's probably a good indicator of where I'm at with this one, too. I also understand continuing on without Paul Walker, but a lot of the film's appeal is gone without him at the center of everything. Otherwise this looks to be a solid entry in a solid and long-running franchise. They're not getting lazy and sticking to the same fourmula by switching Vin Diesel to villain side (not that he's REALLY a villain of course) and the stunts are appropriately larger than those in the last movie. I expect this will keep the fun, popcorn-action series rolling along.
The Lost City of Z
Apr 14th; PG-13
I heard about this one because Tom Holland is in it, and was under the impression for a while that it was a fantasy movie of some kind. Then I found out it's based on a true story which is a big change. I'm not often a fan of true stories, and I'm not a fan of Charlie Hunnam either, who plays the lead. However, for people who are fans or those who don't care, the film does look good -- artistically filmed and artistically told -- and may very well be a worthwhile watch.
Norman
Apr 14th; R
Another that has Dan Stevens in a supporting role. Richard Gere is in the lead and apparently branching out from how we know him with an indie character piece. The characters seem complex and the plot doesn't feel overly familiar, and it has that dark but quirky indie style to it... but honestly if I ever happen to watch it it'll probably only be because of Dan Stevens... and probably also because it was free and I had nothing more interesting to watch.
Free Fire
Apr 21st; R
Sharlto Copley, Brie Larson, Armie Hammer, Cillian Murphy, Sam Riley, non-stop R-rated action-comedy. They had me at Sharlto Copley. Definitely the most wacky movie to come out this month, and also the sort of movie that doesn't need a good critic score to be enjoyable for those inclined. It's obviously meant to be ridiculous. It's R-rating is a little more than I'd prefer to have to deal with, but with this cast and the craziness of the trailer, it's gonna keep nagging me whether I see it or not.
Language warning for this trailer! I tried very hard to find a green band one, but I think in order for one to exist it would have to have no dialogue...
The Circle
Apr 28th; PG-13
Creepy. And this one's based on a book -- has anyone read it? After being disappointed with Emma Watson's Belle I'm not stoked at the idea of seeing her again, but maybe this will be a chance for her to redeem herself. I am eager to see John Boyega in something else though, and Tom Hanks and Karen Gillan are also in the cast. Being based on a book gives me a lot more confidence in the plot's quality than I might normally have. So far all signs point to this being the highlight of the month, though I'll need to be convinced a bit more before I shell out for a ticket. Maybe I should read the book...
Iron Fist was released on Netflix, and we watched it slowly and just finished it, more than a little disappointed. But there was a great superhero show after all -- in February's Legion. It recently wrapped up every bit as well as it began: appropriately crazy, beautiful, and terrifying.
This month I'm feeling a little cynical towards all the new releases, with no must-sees -- but at the same time, plenty of potential. So time will tell if my cynicism is warranted or not! What looks good to you this month, and what was your highlight from March? Let me know in the comments!
Colossal
Apr 7th; R
It's definitely an original idea that I would think would have to potential to be funny, but it's hard to tell whether the potential is fulfilled or not -- the trailer itself isn't funny at all, and the gimmick may cause more problems than it does provide humor. The trailer gives away a lot, but I still have questions about the mechanics of the premise. I don't care for Anne Hathaway at all, but she's balanced out by Dan Stevens who I'd watch in anything. Plus, however much like a rom-com it appears to be, it's still technically a sci-fi too, and that helps a lot. Mild interest here.
Gifted
Apr 7th; PG-13
This movie is full-on drama which is probably the least appealing genre out there to me, and yet it still looks interesting -- and not even because it starts Chris Evans. In fact, the thing that really grabbed my attention when I saw first saw the trailer was Jenny Slate playing a serious, apparently likeable character! I really want to see her do that. The story is just about as interesting as a drama can get, but I can foresee cliches and sappiness as well; it all depends on how it's told.
The Fate of the Furious
Apr 14th; PG-13
I caught up on the Fast and the Furious franchise before the 7th one came out and still didn't bother to see it in theaters, so that's probably a good indicator of where I'm at with this one, too. I also understand continuing on without Paul Walker, but a lot of the film's appeal is gone without him at the center of everything. Otherwise this looks to be a solid entry in a solid and long-running franchise. They're not getting lazy and sticking to the same fourmula by switching Vin Diesel to villain side (not that he's REALLY a villain of course) and the stunts are appropriately larger than those in the last movie. I expect this will keep the fun, popcorn-action series rolling along.
The Lost City of Z
Apr 14th; PG-13
I heard about this one because Tom Holland is in it, and was under the impression for a while that it was a fantasy movie of some kind. Then I found out it's based on a true story which is a big change. I'm not often a fan of true stories, and I'm not a fan of Charlie Hunnam either, who plays the lead. However, for people who are fans or those who don't care, the film does look good -- artistically filmed and artistically told -- and may very well be a worthwhile watch.
Norman
Apr 14th; R
Another that has Dan Stevens in a supporting role. Richard Gere is in the lead and apparently branching out from how we know him with an indie character piece. The characters seem complex and the plot doesn't feel overly familiar, and it has that dark but quirky indie style to it... but honestly if I ever happen to watch it it'll probably only be because of Dan Stevens... and probably also because it was free and I had nothing more interesting to watch.
Free Fire
Apr 21st; R
Sharlto Copley, Brie Larson, Armie Hammer, Cillian Murphy, Sam Riley, non-stop R-rated action-comedy. They had me at Sharlto Copley. Definitely the most wacky movie to come out this month, and also the sort of movie that doesn't need a good critic score to be enjoyable for those inclined. It's obviously meant to be ridiculous. It's R-rating is a little more than I'd prefer to have to deal with, but with this cast and the craziness of the trailer, it's gonna keep nagging me whether I see it or not.
Language warning for this trailer! I tried very hard to find a green band one, but I think in order for one to exist it would have to have no dialogue...
The Circle
Apr 28th; PG-13
Creepy. And this one's based on a book -- has anyone read it? After being disappointed with Emma Watson's Belle I'm not stoked at the idea of seeing her again, but maybe this will be a chance for her to redeem herself. I am eager to see John Boyega in something else though, and Tom Hanks and Karen Gillan are also in the cast. Being based on a book gives me a lot more confidence in the plot's quality than I might normally have. So far all signs point to this being the highlight of the month, though I'll need to be convinced a bit more before I shell out for a ticket. Maybe I should read the book...
Monday, August 1, 2016
Upcoming Movie Roundup - August
Movie-wise, July offered no surprises -- I saw Star Trek Beyond, it was almost exactly what I was expecting, and I thoroughly enjoyed it! Check out my review here! Not-so-great reviews for Jason Bourne kept me from jumping in on opening weekend, but (especially considering that I liked Legacy which has the same RT score) I'm still interested to catch it in theaters. Just need to do it before Suicide Squad comes out!
However, there was a fantastic surprise that I never saw coming in the TV category. That is, one day whilst browsing Netflix I came across a Netflix original show that looked very interesting, and one night my brothers dad and I plunged in. The show is called Stranger Things, and if you've seen it you know that, well, basically our world was turned upside down. It's a science fiction set in the 80's and revolves around kids, much like Super 8 -- but darker. We watched the last of eight episodes last night and I'm still reeling. A review will probably be forthcoming.
What did you watch that was good in July? And are you planning to see anything in August? Here's what's on my radar:
Suicide Squad
Aug 5th; PG-13
August's big event movie is it's first movie. Suicide Squad is very highly anticipated by superhero fans, and promises big things for DC, which has been struggling for a long time to recover and find a voice again after Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy. I don't think Suicide Squad is guaranteed to be a great film, but no matter what, I do think it's a bold step in the right direction. It looks like DC version of Guardians of the Galaxy, and that seems very much like a good thing. I'm also surprised that it landed a PG-13 rating, but not disappointed -- I'm sure they can go dark enough. The trailer is equal parts fun and edgy, its got the cast, and its got the hype. Hopefully the Squad hits their goal!
The Little Prince
August 5th; PG
This is an interesting case. You might remember that back in March I included this film in my list -- but it never actually released. Instead, a week before the release, Paramount dropped the film completely and without explanation. Now Netflix had picked it up and it will be streaming on the 5th. Very strange. But that said, I'm still interested in seeing it, and since I kinda doubt I would have seen it in the theater anyway, I don't mind that it'll be free to watch at home in a couple days. It's still got its large, top-notch cast, and I still think it looks like a good watch.
Pete's Dragon
Aug 12; PG
I remember watching and liking the original when I was very young, but that's no real incentive for me to watch this remake. I'd just as soon have it stay a fond memory. And honestly, this movie doesn't even look like it'll be that good, even if it is supposed to be a kid's movie. I'm not surprised they're trying it, but it really seems like a left-field idea. However, the animation will definitely be better this time, and the cast includes Bryce Dallas Howard, Wes Bentley, and, most importantly, Karl Urban. And I will literally watch anything that has Karl Urban in it. So I can pretty much guarantee you that I will watch this someday.
Anthropoid
Aug 12th (limited); R
I will also watch anything that had Cillian Murphy in it. This WWII spy film is different from the above though, because it looks like the kind of movie I'd be interesting in and enjoy even if it didn't star one of my favorite actors. The trailer is very intense and suspenseful. So it has my interest doubly.
Edge of Winter
Aug 12 (limited); R
And this one has Tom Holland! I think it's actually getting a lot more attention than a film like it normally would because of his presence. It's certainly not the sort of film that could really attract me without a familiar cast. But even with Holland this isn't a movie meant for a wide audience. It looks very psychological and disturbing actually -- in a way that is very intriguing, but also a way that could maybe be depressing in the end. but if I ever find it streaming somewhere, I doubt I'll be able to resist -- Holland, or my curiosity.
Ghost Team
Aug 12 (limited); PG-13
Maybe this is what I'll see in lieu of Ghostbusters 2016. An original ghost hunters comedy! With Jon Heder! The trailer makes it seem like the balance of scary and funny will be really good. The comedy in the trailer isn't laugh-out-loud funny to me, but it has an amusing and appealing natural flow to it. Looks like it could be a quirky and goofy modern-day Ghostbusters-type little flick. And that sounds nice to me!
Ben-Hur
Aug 19th; PG-13
Oh good grief! Just stop with these remakes that do nothing but try to ride the coattails of the originals already! Based on the trailer, this movies sole purpose for existing is just to to that chariot race... so just think up an original idea that allows for chariot racing and do that. Please. This this just pathetic.
The Hollars
Aug 26th (limited); PG-13
Aww, this movie looks so cute! That kinda sounds like a terrible thing to say, but really this trailer just evokes a calm, charming, and casually funny vibe that is really appealing to me right now. A lot like John Krasinski's normal vibe actually, which totally makes sense since he's the star and director! There's also Sharlto Copley, who is awesome, and Mary Elizabeth Winstead, and Anna Kendrick. Sounds like a worthwhile family dramedy to me!
However, there was a fantastic surprise that I never saw coming in the TV category. That is, one day whilst browsing Netflix I came across a Netflix original show that looked very interesting, and one night my brothers dad and I plunged in. The show is called Stranger Things, and if you've seen it you know that, well, basically our world was turned upside down. It's a science fiction set in the 80's and revolves around kids, much like Super 8 -- but darker. We watched the last of eight episodes last night and I'm still reeling. A review will probably be forthcoming.
What did you watch that was good in July? And are you planning to see anything in August? Here's what's on my radar:
Suicide Squad
Aug 5th; PG-13
August's big event movie is it's first movie. Suicide Squad is very highly anticipated by superhero fans, and promises big things for DC, which has been struggling for a long time to recover and find a voice again after Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy. I don't think Suicide Squad is guaranteed to be a great film, but no matter what, I do think it's a bold step in the right direction. It looks like DC version of Guardians of the Galaxy, and that seems very much like a good thing. I'm also surprised that it landed a PG-13 rating, but not disappointed -- I'm sure they can go dark enough. The trailer is equal parts fun and edgy, its got the cast, and its got the hype. Hopefully the Squad hits their goal!
The Little Prince
August 5th; PG
This is an interesting case. You might remember that back in March I included this film in my list -- but it never actually released. Instead, a week before the release, Paramount dropped the film completely and without explanation. Now Netflix had picked it up and it will be streaming on the 5th. Very strange. But that said, I'm still interested in seeing it, and since I kinda doubt I would have seen it in the theater anyway, I don't mind that it'll be free to watch at home in a couple days. It's still got its large, top-notch cast, and I still think it looks like a good watch.
Pete's Dragon
Aug 12; PG
I remember watching and liking the original when I was very young, but that's no real incentive for me to watch this remake. I'd just as soon have it stay a fond memory. And honestly, this movie doesn't even look like it'll be that good, even if it is supposed to be a kid's movie. I'm not surprised they're trying it, but it really seems like a left-field idea. However, the animation will definitely be better this time, and the cast includes Bryce Dallas Howard, Wes Bentley, and, most importantly, Karl Urban. And I will literally watch anything that has Karl Urban in it. So I can pretty much guarantee you that I will watch this someday.
Anthropoid
Aug 12th (limited); R
I will also watch anything that had Cillian Murphy in it. This WWII spy film is different from the above though, because it looks like the kind of movie I'd be interesting in and enjoy even if it didn't star one of my favorite actors. The trailer is very intense and suspenseful. So it has my interest doubly.
Edge of Winter
Aug 12 (limited); R
And this one has Tom Holland! I think it's actually getting a lot more attention than a film like it normally would because of his presence. It's certainly not the sort of film that could really attract me without a familiar cast. But even with Holland this isn't a movie meant for a wide audience. It looks very psychological and disturbing actually -- in a way that is very intriguing, but also a way that could maybe be depressing in the end. but if I ever find it streaming somewhere, I doubt I'll be able to resist -- Holland, or my curiosity.
Ghost Team
Aug 12 (limited); PG-13
Maybe this is what I'll see in lieu of Ghostbusters 2016. An original ghost hunters comedy! With Jon Heder! The trailer makes it seem like the balance of scary and funny will be really good. The comedy in the trailer isn't laugh-out-loud funny to me, but it has an amusing and appealing natural flow to it. Looks like it could be a quirky and goofy modern-day Ghostbusters-type little flick. And that sounds nice to me!
Ben-Hur
Aug 19th; PG-13
Oh good grief! Just stop with these remakes that do nothing but try to ride the coattails of the originals already! Based on the trailer, this movies sole purpose for existing is just to to that chariot race... so just think up an original idea that allows for chariot racing and do that. Please. This this just pathetic.
The Hollars
Aug 26th (limited); PG-13
Aww, this movie looks so cute! That kinda sounds like a terrible thing to say, but really this trailer just evokes a calm, charming, and casually funny vibe that is really appealing to me right now. A lot like John Krasinski's normal vibe actually, which totally makes sense since he's the star and director! There's also Sharlto Copley, who is awesome, and Mary Elizabeth Winstead, and Anna Kendrick. Sounds like a worthwhile family dramedy to me!
Friday, April 1, 2016
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!
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!
Saturday, March 5, 2016
Chappie
It's the near future, (isn't it always?) and Johannesburg, South Africa is the first city to implement the use of robotics in law enforcement. The police bots are an instant and huge success, but their creator, Deon (Dev Patel) is far from satisfied. He's working on an AI program that he hopes, when installed in a bot, will give it a consciousness, and make is just as human as anyone else. Deon's coworker, Vincent (Hugh Jackman) also designed a police bot, but his was rejected, and he's dangerously envious.
Elsewhere there's an outlaw gang who owe an even scarier gangster a lot of money. In an attempt to get a police bot and program it to work for them, they end up kidnapping Deon and a decommissioned bot that he was sneaking away from the facility to test his AI on. He gives them the bot and installs the AI for them in exchange for some visiting privileges so he can run tests.
Chappie (Sharlto Copley) starts out a complete blank slate and as innocent as a baby, but he learns quickly. Deon wants to test his humanity; the gang's leader Ninja (Ninja) wants to skip the growing up part and get him ready to fight for him; and Yo-Landi (Yo-Landi Visser) quickly adopts a motherly role toward him. A lot of the film is spent in observing Chappie learn and develop under the influence of these three conflicting teachers. Chappie learns how to make art, how to be a cool gangster, what a promise is, and is read bedtime stories. And you can see so much of Copley behind the character; he moves like him and he sounds like him, and Copley gives a dynamic performance with vigor, portraying child-like naivete, genius smarts, and chill badassery all in due turn. No one does this kind of thing like Sharlto Copley.
And no one directs this kind of thing like Neill Blomkamp. This latest film effort from him feels more District 9 than Elysium, and that does it plenty of favors. Set back in the unique world of sci-fi J-burg again, boasting an intriguing premise, but backing it up with a more convincing heart than Elysium offered, Chappie feels less contrived and more just plain out of the ordinary world. There's no shortage of speculative AI films out there, but this one manages to find a new pathway to tread that I found surprisingly enjoyable and entertaining.
I started with low expectations because of the bad rap this movie got. And I see why people may have been disappointed, because Chappie isn't really an action film like it seems to be -- or at least not nearly so much as you might expect. Besides bits and pieces, the movie only ever builds up to one big action sequence at the end, and otherwise spends a questionable amount of time in sentimentality-land. I didn't mind it personally -- I got drawn into the wonder of its themes which were, as wrong as they are in reality, undeniably compelling in fiction. The movie makes sense within itself and is fairly smart as well.
Then whenever we are given action it satisfies and makes up pretty well for anything lacking when Chappie was, say, playing with dolls. Chappie earns its R with confidence and unique style in the violence category (there's also a fair bit of language, and the helpful VidAngel cut out the "brief nudity" bit seamlessly). The movie's action is strikingly intense and its violent imagery makes quite an impact. Plus with the writing slowly building us up to the end, both in plot progression and in character, the slower beginning is forgivable because the movie knew where it wanted to go and got there the way it wanted to. And though you may well complain that it is sometimes silly and sentimental or awkwardly strange, it never fails to get its point across and has plenty of interesting things to say.
I didn't fall in love with this one like I did District 9, but it certainly didn't leave me feeling disappointed and underwhelmed like Elysium did. I was there to be entertained by the winning Blomkamp and Copley duo, and I was, and got a little to think about afterwards as a bonus. My enjoyment varied and wobbled around a little, but ultimately I found the story involving, the characters neat and unique (and not just Chappie -- but mostly Chappie) and the storytelling stylish and memorable. Chappie is a conditionally winning robot-coming-of-age story.
Elsewhere there's an outlaw gang who owe an even scarier gangster a lot of money. In an attempt to get a police bot and program it to work for them, they end up kidnapping Deon and a decommissioned bot that he was sneaking away from the facility to test his AI on. He gives them the bot and installs the AI for them in exchange for some visiting privileges so he can run tests.
 |
| The result is Chappie. |
Chappie (Sharlto Copley) starts out a complete blank slate and as innocent as a baby, but he learns quickly. Deon wants to test his humanity; the gang's leader Ninja (Ninja) wants to skip the growing up part and get him ready to fight for him; and Yo-Landi (Yo-Landi Visser) quickly adopts a motherly role toward him. A lot of the film is spent in observing Chappie learn and develop under the influence of these three conflicting teachers. Chappie learns how to make art, how to be a cool gangster, what a promise is, and is read bedtime stories. And you can see so much of Copley behind the character; he moves like him and he sounds like him, and Copley gives a dynamic performance with vigor, portraying child-like naivete, genius smarts, and chill badassery all in due turn. No one does this kind of thing like Sharlto Copley.
And no one directs this kind of thing like Neill Blomkamp. This latest film effort from him feels more District 9 than Elysium, and that does it plenty of favors. Set back in the unique world of sci-fi J-burg again, boasting an intriguing premise, but backing it up with a more convincing heart than Elysium offered, Chappie feels less contrived and more just plain out of the ordinary world. There's no shortage of speculative AI films out there, but this one manages to find a new pathway to tread that I found surprisingly enjoyable and entertaining.
 |
| He's just a robot in photos, but on screen he comes alive just as well as a human character can. |
I started with low expectations because of the bad rap this movie got. And I see why people may have been disappointed, because Chappie isn't really an action film like it seems to be -- or at least not nearly so much as you might expect. Besides bits and pieces, the movie only ever builds up to one big action sequence at the end, and otherwise spends a questionable amount of time in sentimentality-land. I didn't mind it personally -- I got drawn into the wonder of its themes which were, as wrong as they are in reality, undeniably compelling in fiction. The movie makes sense within itself and is fairly smart as well.
Then whenever we are given action it satisfies and makes up pretty well for anything lacking when Chappie was, say, playing with dolls. Chappie earns its R with confidence and unique style in the violence category (there's also a fair bit of language, and the helpful VidAngel cut out the "brief nudity" bit seamlessly). The movie's action is strikingly intense and its violent imagery makes quite an impact. Plus with the writing slowly building us up to the end, both in plot progression and in character, the slower beginning is forgivable because the movie knew where it wanted to go and got there the way it wanted to. And though you may well complain that it is sometimes silly and sentimental or awkwardly strange, it never fails to get its point across and has plenty of interesting things to say.
 |
| "Don't laugh, I'm being cool!" (The true reason I liked this movie: everything sounds better in a South African accent.) |
I didn't fall in love with this one like I did District 9, but it certainly didn't leave me feeling disappointed and underwhelmed like Elysium did. I was there to be entertained by the winning Blomkamp and Copley duo, and I was, and got a little to think about afterwards as a bonus. My enjoyment varied and wobbled around a little, but ultimately I found the story involving, the characters neat and unique (and not just Chappie -- but mostly Chappie) and the storytelling stylish and memorable. Chappie is a conditionally winning robot-coming-of-age story.
Sunday, September 27, 2015
5 Male Characters Tag
Rules:
1.) List 5 of your favorite male 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 (preferably using the link to this post)
Choose one from each category.
1.) Hero
2.) Villain
3.) Anti-hero
4.) Best book-to-screen adaption
5.) Best character perception
Thanks again to Ivy Miranda -- who also hosted the 5 Female Characters Tag a while back -- for tagging me in this! I had a bit of a harder time with this one in general, because I have more favorite male characters than female. In the end, I decided to feature a character in each category who has recently impressed me with his greatness. Here they are:
Basically, if I really like a character, I consider him to be a hero is some way. I could feature almost any of my favorite characters here. I picked Private Reiben from Saving Private Ryan, because he is the hero who was most recently introduced to me. (Yes, I only just recently saw Saving Private Ryan for the first time.) Reiben starts out as quite the antagonist (though not villain) in the movie, being irritable and careless and callous, and resentful to Ryan for getting special treatment, but every great hero needs an origin story, and Reiben's was my favorite part of the fantastic movie. He jumped out at me as an early favorite by looking and sounding like Edward Burns, kept the attention by being the source of much dramatic conflict, and eventually made an undeniable and moving turn to the heroic. The moment pictured above was my favorite: while waiting for the battle, Reiben watches Ryan, and you can SEE him change his mind about hating him. By the end I was very impressed, and glad for arbitrarily choosing such a great character with such a unexpectedly great heroic journey to invest in.
Strangely, this was the hardest category for me to make a choice in with
trying to include only my most recent favorites in all the categories.
After way too much thought, I discovered that I haven't been too keen on any
villains recently. But a little more thought brought me around to
Kruger, from Elysium. Kruger is a villain to the core; a gleeful
embodiment of a guy who just loves being bad. Occasionally terrifying,
surprisingly often very funny; epic South African accent; all thanks to
the delightful Sharlto Copley. What I love most about Kruger is his
fun-loving, laid-back attitude. He seems to put style above all else and
relishes his villainous position. This guy makes evil look cool, and
overshadows everyone else who appears in this movie. Even Matt Damon --
and that's saying a lot.
With this category I was very tempted to pick a character that I mainly consider to be a hero, just with one or two flaws that are cleared up by the end. The definition of an anti-hero is a protagonist who lacks heroic qualities so I would have been within my rights, but instead I decided to go to the opposite side of the spectrum, and that landed David from The Guest in this place. David is certainly the protagonist of The Guest. Interestingly, he is also the villain, and confusingly, he is for the most part, well-meaning in his villainy, making him a perfect, complicated anti-hero. Dan Stevens' performance of this strange and crazy character, is so incredibly perfect that I was literally laughing at his awesomeness many, many times. The balance of creepy and charming is still mind-blowing to me, and his expression changes are to die for.
The Maze Runner series has just passed The Hunger Games as my favorite YA Dystopian series with the second movie installment, The Scorch Trials, in which Dylan O'Brien plays the hero, Thomas. In the books, Thomas never bothered me, but neither did I really ever feel particularly sympathetic towards him or get involved in his personal plights. O'Brien's performance of him in the first movie was very good adapting work, as he was obviously Thomas, with no real character changes, while actually improving on the character's likability. In The Scorch Trials he continued that trend, and is now a really, very involving character. He's still not my favorite character in the series (I still like Newt and Minho better personally) but I do like him way better than I ever expected to -- all thanks to some super great adapting and acting work.
For this category, I easily decided on a Simon Pegg character. But then I had an incredibly hard time choosing between Benji Dunn of the Mission: Impossible franchise, and Shaun, of Shaun of the Dead. Characters who surprise you by being better than you originally thought is one of my all-time favorite things. It gets me ever time. I'm a total sucker for it. And it's something that Pegg does amazingly well. Benji won out simply because our changing perception of him took three movies (so far -- who knows what will happen next!) to get where we are now, and that's just awesome. Even though his brief appearance in M:I3 was hardly more than a cameo, the character was nailed immediately; as Benji earns his stripes by passing his field exam and going on missions with the legend Ethan Hunt, and eventually becoming his best friend, his base is always that nervous, geeky tech guy. But then we witness him beat a polygraph like it's no more than a slightly hard level on a video game, or passionately telling Ethan that he is perfectly willing to put his job and life on the line to help Ethan with an important but unsanctioned mission -- and we realize that Benji always was a lot more and a lot deeper than just the quirky comic relief.
I believe everyone I would tag for this has already been tagged, so I won't bother. But if you haven't been tagged yet and want to fill out his list, please do! I'd love to see your answers! What do you think of mine?
1.) List 5 of your favorite male 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 (preferably using the link to this post)
Choose one from each category.
1.) Hero
2.) Villain
3.) Anti-hero
4.) Best book-to-screen adaption
5.) Best character perception
Thanks again to Ivy Miranda -- who also hosted the 5 Female Characters Tag a while back -- for tagging me in this! I had a bit of a harder time with this one in general, because I have more favorite male characters than female. In the end, I decided to feature a character in each category who has recently impressed me with his greatness. Here they are:
Hero:
Private Reiben
played by Edward Burns
in Saving Private Ryan
Villain:
Kruger
played by Sharlto Copley
in Elysium
Anti-hero:
David
played by Dan Stevens
in The Guest
With this category I was very tempted to pick a character that I mainly consider to be a hero, just with one or two flaws that are cleared up by the end. The definition of an anti-hero is a protagonist who lacks heroic qualities so I would have been within my rights, but instead I decided to go to the opposite side of the spectrum, and that landed David from The Guest in this place. David is certainly the protagonist of The Guest. Interestingly, he is also the villain, and confusingly, he is for the most part, well-meaning in his villainy, making him a perfect, complicated anti-hero. Dan Stevens' performance of this strange and crazy character, is so incredibly perfect that I was literally laughing at his awesomeness many, many times. The balance of creepy and charming is still mind-blowing to me, and his expression changes are to die for.
Best book-to-screen adaptation:
Thomas
played by Dylan O'Brien
in The Maze Runner, and The Scorch Trials
The Maze Runner series has just passed The Hunger Games as my favorite YA Dystopian series with the second movie installment, The Scorch Trials, in which Dylan O'Brien plays the hero, Thomas. In the books, Thomas never bothered me, but neither did I really ever feel particularly sympathetic towards him or get involved in his personal plights. O'Brien's performance of him in the first movie was very good adapting work, as he was obviously Thomas, with no real character changes, while actually improving on the character's likability. In The Scorch Trials he continued that trend, and is now a really, very involving character. He's still not my favorite character in the series (I still like Newt and Minho better personally) but I do like him way better than I ever expected to -- all thanks to some super great adapting and acting work.
Best character perception:
Benji Dunn
played by Simon Pegg
in Mission: Impossible III, Ghost Protocol, and Rogue Nation
I believe everyone I would tag for this has already been tagged, so I won't bother. But if you haven't been tagged yet and want to fill out his list, please do! I'd love to see your answers! What do you think of mine?
Wednesday, September 16, 2015
Europa Report
This review is Spoiler-free.
As they pass our moon, six brave, adventurous souls become the history-making humans who have traveled further away from their home than anyone ever before. And every second after that moment only adds to their success... until things start to go wrong.
They start out their 4 year space voyage excited and hopeful. Their mission is to land on one of Jupiter's moons, Europa, to take samples for studying. The moon is frozen, but studying from afar had found evidence of the possibility of water under the frozen surface, and with that, some even hope to discover some form of life. But six months in, the first thing goes wrong that starts a slow downward spiral -- their communication with Earth and mission control is cut off, and they are left all alone, to boldly go where no one has gone before.
The team of six is made of two pilots, Rosa (Anamaria Marinca) and William (Daniel Wu), two engineers, James (Sharlto Copley) and Andrei (Michael Nyqvist), and two scientists, Katya (Karolina Wydra) and Daniel (Christian Camargo). By the end of the movie all of them had distinctive characters, but some more than others and some sooner than others. Rosa comes across early as a leader, (though technically William is the captain) and qualifies as the lead protagonist. James, besides being very cool simply because he's Sharlto Copley, is the fun one, and the most sympathetic one being the only one we know has a family back on Earth. Katya is the overly-emotional one; Andrei is mentally unsteady; and William and Daniel were the least defined.
But this movie isn't a character piece. All of them were mostly only developed as far as they needed to help the story along, and anything extra was just a nice treat. I was glad James got a little extra, because the reason I actually got around to seeing this was because of my new favorite Sharlto Copley. However, once his presence got me in the door, the movie itself is what I enjoyed most.
The film was done in a Mockumentary/found-footage style, and very strictly. Cameras were mounted around the spaceship and elsewhere, like on the shoulders of spacesuits for a POV look, and one inside the helmet for a shot of the face -- all done for documentation purposes. So often the shot wasn't the "best" angle, with people's faces being half cut out, or having their backs to the camera. This style created a really great effect of wanting to see more, like I was craning my neck the whole time, but not so much to be annoying, only add to the suspense.
And suspense was the order of the day. Though, very interestingly, nothing was a surprise. Somehow or another I always knew what was going to happen before it happened, and it was done on purpose. It was interesting, because I still felt the tension of the moment every time. It wasn't all in chronological order, the time-jumping first of all making you have to pay attention, and also allowing for the perfect slow burn of the suspense. That suspense and the plot started out promisingly ominous, and building to a dizzying pitch before coming to an abrupt and shocking halt that left me still not totally surprised, but with eyes wide and jaw dropped.
Understated sci-fi is a genre that has never failed to impress and entertain me, and Europa Report was no exception, but a fine and realistic addition. Because I enjoy the genre, I enjoyed the film, and chances are, if you do too, you will too, but if you don't, you won't. In the light of day and reality it was perhaps a little silly for being so serious and trying too hard to be profound, but that to me is just another sign of its success at being as convincing and involving as it was in the moment. This film was masterful with that dangerous but useful tool called "suspense," and crafted a simple, but slick, sharp and very memorable journey into the far and foreboding reaches of space.
As they pass our moon, six brave, adventurous souls become the history-making humans who have traveled further away from their home than anyone ever before. And every second after that moment only adds to their success... until things start to go wrong.
They start out their 4 year space voyage excited and hopeful. Their mission is to land on one of Jupiter's moons, Europa, to take samples for studying. The moon is frozen, but studying from afar had found evidence of the possibility of water under the frozen surface, and with that, some even hope to discover some form of life. But six months in, the first thing goes wrong that starts a slow downward spiral -- their communication with Earth and mission control is cut off, and they are left all alone, to boldly go where no one has gone before.
 |
| More like to tensely where no one has gone before. |
The team of six is made of two pilots, Rosa (Anamaria Marinca) and William (Daniel Wu), two engineers, James (Sharlto Copley) and Andrei (Michael Nyqvist), and two scientists, Katya (Karolina Wydra) and Daniel (Christian Camargo). By the end of the movie all of them had distinctive characters, but some more than others and some sooner than others. Rosa comes across early as a leader, (though technically William is the captain) and qualifies as the lead protagonist. James, besides being very cool simply because he's Sharlto Copley, is the fun one, and the most sympathetic one being the only one we know has a family back on Earth. Katya is the overly-emotional one; Andrei is mentally unsteady; and William and Daniel were the least defined.
But this movie isn't a character piece. All of them were mostly only developed as far as they needed to help the story along, and anything extra was just a nice treat. I was glad James got a little extra, because the reason I actually got around to seeing this was because of my new favorite Sharlto Copley. However, once his presence got me in the door, the movie itself is what I enjoyed most.
 |
| The crew of Europa One. Left to right: Daniel, Andrei, William, Katya, James, and Rosa. |
And suspense was the order of the day. Though, very interestingly, nothing was a surprise. Somehow or another I always knew what was going to happen before it happened, and it was done on purpose. It was interesting, because I still felt the tension of the moment every time. It wasn't all in chronological order, the time-jumping first of all making you have to pay attention, and also allowing for the perfect slow burn of the suspense. That suspense and the plot started out promisingly ominous, and building to a dizzying pitch before coming to an abrupt and shocking halt that left me still not totally surprised, but with eyes wide and jaw dropped.
 |
| Even with the restricting filming style, I was still wowed by Europa's landscapes. |
Saturday, September 12, 2015
Elysium
This review is Spoiler-free.
Elysium is Greek mythology's name for heaven, and in the orbit of Earth in the not-too-distant-future, the populated satellite called the same is aptly named. It is beautiful lush and rich, rotating to give artificial gravity and filled with every luxury. Only the wealthy and the important live there, the rest of the human race still live on Earth were conditions are grim. Los Angeles is little more than a slum, and the dismally poor and sick residents are so desperate to go to Elysium to receive healing that they regularly risk death trying to sneak shuttles through Elysium's well-guarded air space.
From this world, comes Max. As long as he's been on Earth, Elysium has been in the sky, and like everyone else, he dreams of going there. But for now he just tries to keep out of trouble, something he's unreasonably not good at for a reformed car thief. A work accident leaves him more desperate than ever to get to Elysium, so in exchange for one of those risky tickets, he agrees to help his old partner in crime with a job.
Matt Damon plays this desperate everyman, and hero of the whole show, but doesn't succeed in making a particularly compelling character out of Max. His arc was the tried and true formula of reluctant hero, so it wasn't bad, but neither did he stand out from the pack with it, or divert from the predictability attached to it. Still he was likable and easy to root for, and Damon gave it plenty of gusto.
He is easily overshadowed by the villain though. And no, not Jodie Foster's character -- her evil overlady's character arc matched the typical quality of the hero, and was overshadowed too, by the real main villain. Kruger. Where there is Neill Blomkamp (this movie's writer and director), there is Sharlto Copley, and where Sharlto Copley goes, awesomeness follows in his wake. Here he is crazy and psychopathic assassin Kruger who does the dirty work to keep Elysium clean and clear of poor ruffians and vagabonds. Kruger isn't a character arc kind of guy, he's more the "fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants-have-fun-and-don't-forget-to-laugh-manically" type, and it's all kinds of great, resulting in the film's best and most defining moments and scenes. He may be the villain, but he's also the hero -- saving the film from an melodramatic and unmemorable demise by pulling it out of that safe little bubble it had no business being in as an R-rated sci-fi movie. Without him there still would have been plenty of language to earn the rating, but he makes it feel worthy of the R.
The inside of that bubble, where the movie spends most it's time is not all bad of course, but it is a pretty mixed bag-- er, bubble. The message and politics was the low point. It was very heavy-handed and forced, resulting in several obvious holes, and very little sense. For just one example: are we really expected to believe that all the rich people are so evil/ignorant/self-absorbed that they couldn't even donate a few magical-healing machines to Earth? Why are there no good, kind rich people? A sadly large number of plot points are similarly contrived or looked over. Fortunately, the cool and entertaining parts of the film distract from the problematic bits well enough to tip the balance in its favor.
On the action and purely entertaining side of things, there were no problems. The gimmicky appeal of the performance enhancing exo-skeleton suit Max wears, plus other futuristic weaponry gadgets and slick, innovative filming style of the brutal fight scenes all kept things interesting and exciting. Things were particularly exciting and exceptionally memorable, as you may imagine, when Kruger was around. I cannot stress enough how much he helped give the action that gritty, disturbing, unpredictability it needed. The action was never bad, and always the best part of the movie, but when Kruger was involved, it was downright great.
At the heart of this piece there's not much more that what you would expect to find inside that previously mentioned safety bubble; stale air. The failed attempt of making an emotional connection with the audience never detracted from the movie, so for me it's totally neutral. I went into this film wanting to see a hardcore futuristic shoot-'em-up showdown between Matt Damon and Sharlto Copley, and since that's exactly what I got, I never felt the loss of the half-hearted heart.
Neill Blomkamp's second feature film may be a letdown in comparison to his astonishing first, District 9, but judged as it should be, for its ability to entertain as a sci-fi action movie, there's more to be admired and entertained by than admonished and bored by -- with it's totally original if occasionally contrived plot, thrilling action, cool hero and even cooler villain. Elysium is a plenty exciting and fun action-filled sci-fi adventure, even without quite reaching its heavenly goal.
Elysium is Greek mythology's name for heaven, and in the orbit of Earth in the not-too-distant-future, the populated satellite called the same is aptly named. It is beautiful lush and rich, rotating to give artificial gravity and filled with every luxury. Only the wealthy and the important live there, the rest of the human race still live on Earth were conditions are grim. Los Angeles is little more than a slum, and the dismally poor and sick residents are so desperate to go to Elysium to receive healing that they regularly risk death trying to sneak shuttles through Elysium's well-guarded air space.
 |
| Awesomely designed and beautifully rendered. I'd definitely live there. |
From this world, comes Max. As long as he's been on Earth, Elysium has been in the sky, and like everyone else, he dreams of going there. But for now he just tries to keep out of trouble, something he's unreasonably not good at for a reformed car thief. A work accident leaves him more desperate than ever to get to Elysium, so in exchange for one of those risky tickets, he agrees to help his old partner in crime with a job.
Matt Damon plays this desperate everyman, and hero of the whole show, but doesn't succeed in making a particularly compelling character out of Max. His arc was the tried and true formula of reluctant hero, so it wasn't bad, but neither did he stand out from the pack with it, or divert from the predictability attached to it. Still he was likable and easy to root for, and Damon gave it plenty of gusto.
 |
| Nice suit, nice haircut, nice tattoos. Still not as cool as Jason Bourne. |
He is easily overshadowed by the villain though. And no, not Jodie Foster's character -- her evil overlady's character arc matched the typical quality of the hero, and was overshadowed too, by the real main villain. Kruger. Where there is Neill Blomkamp (this movie's writer and director), there is Sharlto Copley, and where Sharlto Copley goes, awesomeness follows in his wake. Here he is crazy and psychopathic assassin Kruger who does the dirty work to keep Elysium clean and clear of poor ruffians and vagabonds. Kruger isn't a character arc kind of guy, he's more the "fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants-have-fun-and-don't-forget-to-laugh-manically" type, and it's all kinds of great, resulting in the film's best and most defining moments and scenes. He may be the villain, but he's also the hero -- saving the film from an melodramatic and unmemorable demise by pulling it out of that safe little bubble it had no business being in as an R-rated sci-fi movie. Without him there still would have been plenty of language to earn the rating, but he makes it feel worthy of the R.
 |
| Kruger knows how to cut loose. And blow things up. Literally, and figuratively -- but mostly literally. |
The inside of that bubble, where the movie spends most it's time is not all bad of course, but it is a pretty mixed bag-- er, bubble. The message and politics was the low point. It was very heavy-handed and forced, resulting in several obvious holes, and very little sense. For just one example: are we really expected to believe that all the rich people are so evil/ignorant/self-absorbed that they couldn't even donate a few magical-healing machines to Earth? Why are there no good, kind rich people? A sadly large number of plot points are similarly contrived or looked over. Fortunately, the cool and entertaining parts of the film distract from the problematic bits well enough to tip the balance in its favor.
On the action and purely entertaining side of things, there were no problems. The gimmicky appeal of the performance enhancing exo-skeleton suit Max wears, plus other futuristic weaponry gadgets and slick, innovative filming style of the brutal fight scenes all kept things interesting and exciting. Things were particularly exciting and exceptionally memorable, as you may imagine, when Kruger was around. I cannot stress enough how much he helped give the action that gritty, disturbing, unpredictability it needed. The action was never bad, and always the best part of the movie, but when Kruger was involved, it was downright great.
 |
| Max reloads the gun as fast as he can, but Kruger still walks toward him, because you know what? Hurrying isn't as cool, and being cool is the most important thing. |
At the heart of this piece there's not much more that what you would expect to find inside that previously mentioned safety bubble; stale air. The failed attempt of making an emotional connection with the audience never detracted from the movie, so for me it's totally neutral. I went into this film wanting to see a hardcore futuristic shoot-'em-up showdown between Matt Damon and Sharlto Copley, and since that's exactly what I got, I never felt the loss of the half-hearted heart.
Neill Blomkamp's second feature film may be a letdown in comparison to his astonishing first, District 9, but judged as it should be, for its ability to entertain as a sci-fi action movie, there's more to be admired and entertained by than admonished and bored by -- with it's totally original if occasionally contrived plot, thrilling action, cool hero and even cooler villain. Elysium is a plenty exciting and fun action-filled sci-fi adventure, even without quite reaching its heavenly goal.
Tuesday, September 8, 2015
District 9
Major Spoilers.
I saw this movie cut for TV.
I heard this film was mind-blowing and amazing back in 2009 when it released, but for some reason I was still surprised when, six years later, I finally watched it, and yes, it blew my mind.
There is basically nothing bad to say about this film. It's extremely creative with its premise, and its mockumentary filming-style; very well thought out, and convincingly realistic. Although it was undoubtedly a no-brainer for the South African filmmakers, the fact that it's set in Johannesburg, and has no big, famous actors (well, at the time) in its cast sets it apart from your typical alien fare wonderfully.
So there's this amazingly realistic (because anything that could be real really was) science fiction, wholly new kind of alien invasion story, that is interesting enough to be a movie all on its own, and for the first act I was even tricked into thinking that was all it was. There was not one character that seemed fitted to be a leading character or hero; there only appeared to be neutral side characters or villains. I thought the film was being original by not giving us a human character for us to root for, to force us to concentrate on the (granted, very interesting) alien's problem. But as interesting, thoughtful and remarkable the base plot was, in the end it only serves as a complex background for one of the most unexpectedly amazing character pieces I've ever seen.
Sharlto Copley was a producer, not an actor at the time when he took on the role of Wikus van de Merwe for his director friend Neill Blomkamp, but the moment he became Wikus, he became not only an actor, but one of the best in the business.
Wikus starts a caricatured stereotype of a government employee; dorky, shallow, unremarkable, a jerk, and perhaps slightly endearing, but mostly because you feel sorry for him that he doesn't know how annoying he is. He's obviously overjoyed at getting to be such a main focus of the documentary -- he puts on his best face for the cameras and talks to them incessantly and happily while doing his job, which was sometimes so cruel it made a disturbing contrast. Like the scene where he casually and gleefully oversees the murder of alien eggs as part of population control.
Then, when Wikus's world is turned on its head (as literally as something can figuratively be turned on its head) we see the real him, and he's not a very likable guy either, (much like the first one, only even less nice). Though we do pity his terrible, bizarre situation and admire his desperate fight against it. Still his self-mindedness gets in the way of his reaching a hero status... until the end. In the final climax he enters that exo-suit a desperate coward using up his final thread of hope, and emerges it a brave, selfless, straight-up awesome hero.
I found it very interesting and strangely profound that for the entire movie, this guy would never shut up -- he was seriously talking almost constantly, every chance he had, and to anyone he thought might listen -- but in his last scene, once he has finally become the hero we never imagined he could ever be, he never says a word.
District 9 was a bit of a sleeper for me. It took me whole week to soak it in and realize how blown away I was. Then I had to watch it again to confirm my being blown away, and was blown away again -- by the world, the character, the physical transformation from man to beast, and the heroic one from beast to man; and the incredible performance that made it all convincing. It really is one of the most remarkable movies I've ever seen, with one of the most deceptively extraordinary, mind-blowing heroes at its core.
I saw this movie cut for TV.
I heard this film was mind-blowing and amazing back in 2009 when it released, but for some reason I was still surprised when, six years later, I finally watched it, and yes, it blew my mind.
There is basically nothing bad to say about this film. It's extremely creative with its premise, and its mockumentary filming-style; very well thought out, and convincingly realistic. Although it was undoubtedly a no-brainer for the South African filmmakers, the fact that it's set in Johannesburg, and has no big, famous actors (well, at the time) in its cast sets it apart from your typical alien fare wonderfully.
 |
| This is one memorable movie. |
So there's this amazingly realistic (because anything that could be real really was) science fiction, wholly new kind of alien invasion story, that is interesting enough to be a movie all on its own, and for the first act I was even tricked into thinking that was all it was. There was not one character that seemed fitted to be a leading character or hero; there only appeared to be neutral side characters or villains. I thought the film was being original by not giving us a human character for us to root for, to force us to concentrate on the (granted, very interesting) alien's problem. But as interesting, thoughtful and remarkable the base plot was, in the end it only serves as a complex background for one of the most unexpectedly amazing character pieces I've ever seen.
Sharlto Copley was a producer, not an actor at the time when he took on the role of Wikus van de Merwe for his director friend Neill Blomkamp, but the moment he became Wikus, he became not only an actor, but one of the best in the business.
 |
| "My name is Wikus van de Merwe... and what we do here at this department is we try to engage with the prawn of behalf of MNU, and on behalf of humans." With general idea of what to say, Copley and other cast members would just improvise their lines. |
Wikus starts a caricatured stereotype of a government employee; dorky, shallow, unremarkable, a jerk, and perhaps slightly endearing, but mostly because you feel sorry for him that he doesn't know how annoying he is. He's obviously overjoyed at getting to be such a main focus of the documentary -- he puts on his best face for the cameras and talks to them incessantly and happily while doing his job, which was sometimes so cruel it made a disturbing contrast. Like the scene where he casually and gleefully oversees the murder of alien eggs as part of population control.
Then, when Wikus's world is turned on its head (as literally as something can figuratively be turned on its head) we see the real him, and he's not a very likable guy either, (much like the first one, only even less nice). Though we do pity his terrible, bizarre situation and admire his desperate fight against it. Still his self-mindedness gets in the way of his reaching a hero status... until the end. In the final climax he enters that exo-suit a desperate coward using up his final thread of hope, and emerges it a brave, selfless, straight-up awesome hero.
 |
| I cannot get over how cool this is! And I |
I found it very interesting and strangely profound that for the entire movie, this guy would never shut up -- he was seriously talking almost constantly, every chance he had, and to anyone he thought might listen -- but in his last scene, once he has finally become the hero we never imagined he could ever be, he never says a word.
District 9 was a bit of a sleeper for me. It took me whole week to soak it in and realize how blown away I was. Then I had to watch it again to confirm my being blown away, and was blown away again -- by the world, the character, the physical transformation from man to beast, and the heroic one from beast to man; and the incredible performance that made it all convincing. It really is one of the most remarkable movies I've ever seen, with one of the most deceptively extraordinary, mind-blowing heroes at its core.
Friday, May 8, 2015
10 Favorite Screen Characters
Jamie at Through Two Blue Eyes has tagged me to make a list of 10 of my favorite screen characters, which is something I could not pass up on spending way too much time on!
Instructions: For this quick, fun blog hop, you just name your 10 favorite characters from movies or TV, then tag 10 friends (if you can) to do the same!
Pretty simple. In theory at least. Leaving people out is one of my least favorite things to do, and my list of favorite characters goes on way beyond the number 10. (It goes way beyond 100 for that matter!) But I'll try to not think about it too hard and just go with some favorite characters who have been impressing me with their greatness lately.
The descriptions of the characters my contain spoilers for their character arc. I'll try to keep away from unnecessary plot spoilers though.
Since this is for favorite screen characters, I will forgo mentioning Bard, Bilbo, and Thorin, because I first loved their characters in a book, not on the screen, but Bofur is different -- there is no personality for him in Tolkien's novel. But the dwarf played by James Nesbitt in the Hobbit movies is full of personality, stands out effortlessly, and is easily my favorite of the twelve dwarves. (And for someone who is just fun and fun to love, he even beats out Thorin.) I love his chipper attitude, the way his hat and braids to not conform to the laws of gravity, and his fantastic mustache. I love that he's always eager to help out, honest and straightforward, and that he's always the one who wonders where Bilbo is. He keeps things peppy and lighthearted and is just generally one very cool dwarf.
This John Hughes iconic classic is, in my opinion, one of the more hilarious movies ever made, and Alan Ruck's Cameron, best friend of professional hooky-player Ferris Bueller is a big part of the film's greatness. He's the guy who protests to everything but is bullied into participating in crazy adventures because the hero is sure that the only reason he's a sour-puss in the first place is because his parents bullied him that way. Definitely true for Cameron. This movie doesn't have much plot or character development to speak of -- it takes place in one day, and is almost nothing but high quality, funny fluff -- but interestingly, Cameron does get quite a bit. He learns to stop worrying and start living. He also stares into the eyes of a child in a pointillism painting and seems to see something quite profound. And he makes a very necessary third wheel to the party of three friends who have the chemistry for teenage adventure and hilarity like no one else.
An easily overlooked Dark Knight Trilogy villain what with Bane and the Joker, but Cillian Murphy's psycho psych doctor has found a special place in my heart. It has a little to do with his dramatic and off-putting facial bone structure, and a little to do with his dazzling blue eyes that seem to drill into your very soul, but mostly it's his eerie calm persona, particularly in that one scene where he puts Falcone out of commission. Every time I watch that scene I am struck again by the detail and subtlety of the performance, and the way Crane puts on a poker face, but is just readable enough. I love the details of him; the way he smacks open his mouth and breathes audibly before speaking; the way every eye movement and smile seems like a precise and conscious act; and the way he calls Batman "the bat man."
I'm fairly sure that there are no roles that Sam Rockwell has taken that aren't awesome. Every time I see him his characters are the funniest and the coolest. Owen, the underachieving manger of a retro water park though, is arguably his best. He jumps at the chance to befriend an awkward, lonely kid, Duncan, who wanders into his park, impressing him with his extravagant comedy routines, and uncanny ability to dodge work. He becomes a friend, mentor, much-needed father figure, and place to escape to for Duncan. And when Duncan opens up to him, he sincerely encourages and consoles him, putting the jokes aside. Though they seem like opposites on the surface, Owen sees himself in Duncan; someone who is hurting more than he shows, and feels oppressed by the world. He doesn't have all the answers, but commendably does his best help Duncan on his way -- and makes him and us laugh with his signature Rockwell-style banter.
Defense lawyer by day; masked vigilante by night. One interesting twist though: he's blind! As he says though, "there are other ways to see." And he uses every single one of those ways to help him "see" better than sighted people can. Then he uses this skill to kick butt. Awesomely. He fights criminals at night and defends accused criminals during the day, and all the time, fights the devil inside him, and tries to find a balance with it, not knowing if he should embrace or eradicate it. Charlie Cox's immaculate performance portrays both of Matt's contradictory sides with ideal balance. On one side he's kind and gentle, easy-going and fun loving; but is driven, and cares about the things and people that need caring for. Then the darker side does more for those things and people than the good side and the law will allow. This side tells one villain that he enjoys hurting him, and says it very convincingly. The best thing about this character though, is the incredible jaw-dropping fight scenes he is involved in.
Joss Whedon's TV show Firefly and its sequel film has no shortage of totally awesome, totally original characters. I however, am partial to the goofy pilot Wash, who is, for the most part, the comic relief. He is played with comic genius by Alan Tudyk (along with Whedon's brilliant comedy-writing skills) and never fails to be hilarious and endearing. He's laid back, wears Hawaiian shirts and plays with plastic dinosaurs on his console. He's married to his totally opposite -- the captain's right-hand woman, hardcore and serious Zoe -- and their relationship works every bit as well as you wouldn't think it would. He may be a goofball, but when there's a call for it, can be serious too, and the change just adds that much more gravitas to whatever the situation may be. There are nine very shiny people on board the Serenity, and weird blonde guy who flies her is one of them.
Endeavour Morse (Shaun Evans) is a young, opera music and crossword puzzle loving Detective Constable for the Oxford Police in the 1960's. He's reserved and sensitive, usually quiet with occasional outbursts of passion; very smart, but not very wise. He sees connections in cases that no one else does, and is often ridiculed for his wild theories -- but to be fair, he is by no means right all the time. I like him for these reasons, and because of how he goes against the grain; in his work and pretty much everywhere else, and even as a character. Sure, on the surface he may be your typical brazen, world-weary detective who's a loner and drinks too much, but he's really too young to be world-weary yet, loneliness is a hindrance to him, and his brazenness is a facade too easily seen through. He's also a complete gentleman, gentle, kind and caring. Often scared, but always brave; in some ways modest, in some proud; and if you want someone who will never give up on a case until the end, there are a lot of detective shows out there that boast their detectives have that quality, but for DC Morse, actions speak louder than words.
Fitz (Iain De Caestecker) was always my favorite character -- from the very first episode I believe. First of all, you're naturally twice as awesome if you have a Scottish accent, and Fitz's is an exceptionally good one. Also, I like that he is a novice at field work and unusually not good at fighting for a SHIELD agent. But of course has the bravery go in the field and fight if he needs to. At the beginning of season two he lost a little of his coolness with the trauma-induced speech and motor skills dysfunction, but that just added depth and sympathy to the character. And then, in the 11th episode of season two he just blew me away. I thought for sure he was going to tell someone when he leaves after finding Skye with all the broken glass, but no -- he understood immediately what was going on because he's smart, but he also knew what to do because he's really smart, and is experiencing a similar situation. His quick thinking in that scene seriously impressed me and his compassion and understanding of Skye that made my favorite Agents of SHEILD moment. Now, every time I see him I think to myself, "Oh my goodness, Fitz is so amazing."
I only ever started watching Parks and Rec for Chris Pratt's hilarious goofball Andy Dwyer, so a few things about the show really surprised me; like how awesome and funny the show is overall, and how great all the characters are. The show's quality gradually gets better from the very first episode, and finally hits its peak only after Ben Wyatt and Chris Trager join the cast of characters. Ben (played by Adam Scott) is the uptight stick-in-the-mud geek; shamelessly nerdy, and surprisingly cool. I began to really like him only because he and Leslie's romance was so cute, and it's really neat how they complement each other in such strange ways, and then upon re-watching some episodes I really began to appreciate the contradictory awesomeness and awkwardness of him. I love how he nerds out over things like the Game of Thrones throne, or creating The Cones of Dunshire or the claymation movie, yet can be very charming as has healthy relationships with everyone in the Parks Department (even Ron!). And I just love that he never gets the appeal of Little Sebastian -- he's like the show's reality check.
I only recently saw District 9 for the first time, and in spite of the super-unique premise, and the incredible visual quality of it, the thing that blew me away and impressed me the most was the main character's character arc: Sharlto Copley's dorky South African government employee who gets way more than he signed up for when he is selected to head up the relocation of a huge population of stranded aliens. At first, Wikus is completely unlikable. He's a jerk, insensitive, oblivious and self-obsessed, and putting on a front for the "documentary" cameras -- though I don't think even he knew he was. Once the gloves come off we see the real him -- an even worse person -- still self-serving and even more of a jerk, plus a coward. But he's also confused, scared and desperate, so as we begin to understand him we also begin to sympathize with him and become involved in his journey to heroism. It's a journey that he gives a lot of resistance to, before all at once completing the transformation and becoming a totally awesome, full-fledged selfless action hero. It really is one of the craziest character arcs I've ever seen, and along with Copley's charming and raw performance, makes a very uniquely endearing character.
Phew! And there you have it. And interestingly there seems to be common theme or trait among all these guys, but I'm not sure exactly how to define it... they're all more than they seem to be? That's true of most of my favorite characters. Anyway...
I am tagging:
Neal
Sarah
Banrion An Gheimhridh
Lizzie
Hannah
Benjamin
Elora Shore
Olivia
Faith
Tegan Hall
Obviously, you're not obliged to participate, but if you'd like to, I love to see your list!
Instructions: For this quick, fun blog hop, you just name your 10 favorite characters from movies or TV, then tag 10 friends (if you can) to do the same!
Pretty simple. In theory at least. Leaving people out is one of my least favorite things to do, and my list of favorite characters goes on way beyond the number 10. (It goes way beyond 100 for that matter!) But I'll try to not think about it too hard and just go with some favorite characters who have been impressing me with their greatness lately.
The descriptions of the characters my contain spoilers for their character arc. I'll try to keep away from unnecessary plot spoilers though.
 |
| "Oh, did you hear that, lads? He says we'll blunt the knives!" |
 |
| "He'll keep calling me... He'll keep calling me until I come over. He'll make me feel guilty... Uh, this is ridiculous. Okay I'll go, I'll go, I'll go, I'll go, I'll go." |
Cameron Frye -- Ferris Bueller's Day Off
This John Hughes iconic classic is, in my opinion, one of the more hilarious movies ever made, and Alan Ruck's Cameron, best friend of professional hooky-player Ferris Bueller is a big part of the film's greatness. He's the guy who protests to everything but is bullied into participating in crazy adventures because the hero is sure that the only reason he's a sour-puss in the first place is because his parents bullied him that way. Definitely true for Cameron. This movie doesn't have much plot or character development to speak of -- it takes place in one day, and is almost nothing but high quality, funny fluff -- but interestingly, Cameron does get quite a bit. He learns to stop worrying and start living. He also stares into the eyes of a child in a pointillism painting and seems to see something quite profound. And he makes a very necessary third wheel to the party of three friends who have the chemistry for teenage adventure and hilarity like no one else.
 |
| "You like a man who takes himself too seriously. You want my opinion? You need to lighten up!" |
Dr. Johnathan Crane -- Batman Begins (review)
An easily overlooked Dark Knight Trilogy villain what with Bane and the Joker, but Cillian Murphy's psycho psych doctor has found a special place in my heart. It has a little to do with his dramatic and off-putting facial bone structure, and a little to do with his dazzling blue eyes that seem to drill into your very soul, but mostly it's his eerie calm persona, particularly in that one scene where he puts Falcone out of commission. Every time I watch that scene I am struck again by the detail and subtlety of the performance, and the way Crane puts on a poker face, but is just readable enough. I love the details of him; the way he smacks open his mouth and breathes audibly before speaking; the way every eye movement and smile seems like a precise and conscious act; and the way he calls Batman "the bat man."
 |
| "Oh, the park? I've always been there. Ever since I was a small Cambodian child. Of course, that was after 'Nam. Then I joined the circus to become a clown fighter. I know about 46 ways to kill a clown. I hate clowns. I'm kidding -- except for the part where I really do hate them." |
Owen -- The Way, Way Back (review)
 |
| "I'm not seeking forgivness for what I've done, father, I'm asking forgiveness for what I'm about to do." |
Matt Murdock -- Marvel's Daredevil (review)
Defense lawyer by day; masked vigilante by night. One interesting twist though: he's blind! As he says though, "there are other ways to see." And he uses every single one of those ways to help him "see" better than sighted people can. Then he uses this skill to kick butt. Awesomely. He fights criminals at night and defends accused criminals during the day, and all the time, fights the devil inside him, and tries to find a balance with it, not knowing if he should embrace or eradicate it. Charlie Cox's immaculate performance portrays both of Matt's contradictory sides with ideal balance. On one side he's kind and gentle, easy-going and fun loving; but is driven, and cares about the things and people that need caring for. Then the darker side does more for those things and people than the good side and the law will allow. This side tells one villain that he enjoys hurting him, and says it very convincingly. The best thing about this character though, is the incredible jaw-dropping fight scenes he is involved in.
 |
| "I'm a leaf on the wind; watch how I soar." |
Hoban "Wash" Washburne -- Firefly/Serenity
Joss Whedon's TV show Firefly and its sequel film has no shortage of totally awesome, totally original characters. I however, am partial to the goofy pilot Wash, who is, for the most part, the comic relief. He is played with comic genius by Alan Tudyk (along with Whedon's brilliant comedy-writing skills) and never fails to be hilarious and endearing. He's laid back, wears Hawaiian shirts and plays with plastic dinosaurs on his console. He's married to his totally opposite -- the captain's right-hand woman, hardcore and serious Zoe -- and their relationship works every bit as well as you wouldn't think it would. He may be a goofball, but when there's a call for it, can be serious too, and the change just adds that much more gravitas to whatever the situation may be. There are nine very shiny people on board the Serenity, and weird blonde guy who flies her is one of them.
 |
| Morse: "How do you do it? Leave it at the door?" Inspector Thursday: "Cause I have to. Case like this will tear a heart right out of a man. Find something worth defending--" "I thought I had! Found something." "Music? I suppose music is as good as anything. Go home. Put your best record on. Loud as it'll play. And with every note, you remember: that's something that the darkness couldn't take from you." |
Endeavour Morse (Shaun Evans) is a young, opera music and crossword puzzle loving Detective Constable for the Oxford Police in the 1960's. He's reserved and sensitive, usually quiet with occasional outbursts of passion; very smart, but not very wise. He sees connections in cases that no one else does, and is often ridiculed for his wild theories -- but to be fair, he is by no means right all the time. I like him for these reasons, and because of how he goes against the grain; in his work and pretty much everywhere else, and even as a character. Sure, on the surface he may be your typical brazen, world-weary detective who's a loner and drinks too much, but he's really too young to be world-weary yet, loneliness is a hindrance to him, and his brazenness is a facade too easily seen through. He's also a complete gentleman, gentle, kind and caring. Often scared, but always brave; in some ways modest, in some proud; and if you want someone who will never give up on a case until the end, there are a lot of detective shows out there that boast their detectives have that quality, but for DC Morse, actions speak louder than words.
 |
| "You're just different now. You're just different now, and there's nothing wrong with that." |
Leo Fitz -- Agents of S.H.E.I.L.D.
Fitz (Iain De Caestecker) was always my favorite character -- from the very first episode I believe. First of all, you're naturally twice as awesome if you have a Scottish accent, and Fitz's is an exceptionally good one. Also, I like that he is a novice at field work and unusually not good at fighting for a SHIELD agent. But of course has the bravery go in the field and fight if he needs to. At the beginning of season two he lost a little of his coolness with the trauma-induced speech and motor skills dysfunction, but that just added depth and sympathy to the character. And then, in the 11th episode of season two he just blew me away. I thought for sure he was going to tell someone when he leaves after finding Skye with all the broken glass, but no -- he understood immediately what was going on because he's smart, but he also knew what to do because he's really smart, and is experiencing a similar situation. His quick thinking in that scene seriously impressed me and his compassion and understanding of Skye that made my favorite Agents of SHEILD moment. Now, every time I see him I think to myself, "Oh my goodness, Fitz is so amazing."
 |
| "You know, 'nerd culture' is mainstream now. So, when you use the word 'nerd' derogatorily, it means you're the one that's out of the zeitgeist." |
Ben Wyatt -- Parks and Recreation
I only ever started watching Parks and Rec for Chris Pratt's hilarious goofball Andy Dwyer, so a few things about the show really surprised me; like how awesome and funny the show is overall, and how great all the characters are. The show's quality gradually gets better from the very first episode, and finally hits its peak only after Ben Wyatt and Chris Trager join the cast of characters. Ben (played by Adam Scott) is the uptight stick-in-the-mud geek; shamelessly nerdy, and surprisingly cool. I began to really like him only because he and Leslie's romance was so cute, and it's really neat how they complement each other in such strange ways, and then upon re-watching some episodes I really began to appreciate the contradictory awesomeness and awkwardness of him. I love how he nerds out over things like the Game of Thrones throne, or creating The Cones of Dunshire or the claymation movie, yet can be very charming as has healthy relationships with everyone in the Parks Department (even Ron!). And I just love that he never gets the appeal of Little Sebastian -- he's like the show's reality check.
 |
| "Hello little guy! It's the sweetie man coming!" |
Wikus Van de Merwe -- District 9
Phew! And there you have it. And interestingly there seems to be common theme or trait among all these guys, but I'm not sure exactly how to define it... they're all more than they seem to be? That's true of most of my favorite characters. Anyway...
I am tagging:
Neal
Sarah
Banrion An Gheimhridh
Lizzie
Hannah
Benjamin
Elora Shore
Olivia
Faith
Tegan Hall
Obviously, you're not obliged to participate, but if you'd like to, I love to see your list!
Tuesday, March 17, 2015
Maleficent
Major Spoilers throughout.
Once upon a time, not very long ago, there was a beloved entertainment genre, known as "fairytales." Fairytales were known for their fantasy settings, sweeping light romance, and clear-cut good vs. evil themes. But then some people grew tired of the simple, classic stories, and started a new trend of turning those tales on their heads and confusing the enjoyment right out of them -- Maleficent is one such product of that trend, and the poster child for everything ridiculous about it.
There are two kingdoms; one filled with humans, and the other with magical creatures and fairies. The most powerful being in the fairy land is Maleficent, just a girl, but equipped with huge horns, gigantic wings, and full of kindness and love for everyone -- just like all of her kin. Young Maleficent meets a human boy her age, Stefan, and the two slowly form a close friendship that eventually turns to love. Then without warning the boy is gone. Maleficent grows up into Angelina Jolie. Then the plot really starts rolling, when the human king attacks her land, for murky reasons of fear, jealousy, or some other nasty, unreasonable human feeling.
In the battle, it is important to note, Maleficent and her forces kill many soldiers, and suffer no casualties themselves. If you think that goes against the supposed strict peacefulness of the fairies, you're absolutely right. After the king is easily defeated, and on his deathbed from a fall caused by Maleficent, he promises the throne to the person who can avenge him, speaking to his officers and councilors, but his servant is also present, a grown up Stefan (and now Sharlto Copley). Stefan grew greedily ambitious over the years; for the throne, he goes to murder the person he supposedly loved as a boy. To a little of his credit, he can't do it, but he does mange to cut off and steal her wings, which gets him the throne all the same.
Those wings must have housed all of Maleficent's goodness, because after they're gone, her transformation into the villainous, vengeful, and vile lady we all know is swift indeed. And her villain side makes much more sense than her good side. She enlists a crow (Sam Riley, when he is in human form) to be her spy and when he reports that the new king Stefan and his queen have had a daughter, she makes her move for revenge.
The obvious question now is why didn't she just go to the castle and kill Stefan immediately? Or maybe just take and eye for an eye (or eye for wing, as the case would be)? But no, her master plan of revenge is to curse his daughter. She is too good to murder the one she wants revenge on -- one who deserves it -- but she has no problem doing essentially the same to an innocent. She curses the baby girl, as we all know, to prick her finger on a spindle on the sixteenth birthday and fall into a sleep-like death (I think the technical term is actually "death-like sleep"). Only after Stefan begs her does she allow for a cure -- true love's kiss can break the curse, and nothing else -- this, because she knows true love doesn't exist; when they were young, he gave her a kiss saying it was true love's, and look at how they turned out.
The further the story goes, the less sensible it gets; the very next thing the king does is have every spindle in the land burned and their remains stored in the castle. What. Then, he sends the baby away from him and her mother to be raised by three undersized, spectacularly incompetent fairies. Baby Aurora would have died in their care if not for... the protection of Maleficent and Diaval the crow.
Then as time passes there's a bunch of time-filler, masquerading unconvincingly as plot as the fairies act stupid, Aurora grows up, (turning into Elle Fanning) and Maleficent follows her around, pretending to hate her. In my boredom, I did notice that Diaval was an interesting character; he pledges his service to Maleficent after she saves his life, and is singularly and faithfully devoted to his pledge. This doesn't keep him from speaking his mind when he thinks differently from her though; he genuinely cares for Aurora and doesn't attempt to hide it. For a while I thought it would be a great twist if he were the one capable of delivering the curse-breaking smooch.
Speaking of the smooch, when Prince Phillip (Brenton Thwaites) -- sporting literally the worst hairstyle ever -- shows up at Aurora's house looking for directions it was so awkward and uncomfortable that I wish they had just dispensed with the romance altogether and been done with it already. I guess they somewhat understood how important romance is to a fairytale after all; but not enough to put any effort into making it meaningful -- or even romantic.
A little sense long wanted is restored when Maleficent finally regrets cursing Aurora. That moment is the most compelling the character and actress ever gets. On her sixteenth birthday, Aurora discovers her parentage and her curse, and guesses that it came from Maleficent, sending her off to the castle, and not long after that, sound asleep in a bed.
The twist is actually legitimate. Over the years Maleficent came to love Aurora like a daughter, and after Phillip's kiss fails to do the trick, Maleficent gives her a farewell kiss on the forehead, promising to protect her even as she sleeps, and Aurora wakes up, without even a hint of a grudge, which was really very nice of her. The problem here being not that Maleficent's love shouldn't have been able to break the spell -- of course it should -- but the implication attached to Phillip's failure that fairytale-brand "true love" -- true, and romantic love -- doesn't exist. And the movie never gives us a reason to believe that it does. In the end Aurora and Phillip still have that super-awkward cutesy attraction, and it's played like a good thing. But, if his kiss didn't work, then he didn't love her, so why would they still end up together? The most obvious explanation is that selfless love and romantic love are mutually exclusive, and that is a conclusion that I do not appreciate.
With the climax comes the worst plot hole of the film, when Stefan discovers that Maleficent is in the castle and wages war on her in a parlor. Now, Stefan became an interesting character to me, and I even held out hope that he, like Maleficent, would get a redemptive turn in the end. But I shouldn't have. So Maleficent defeats him, (with the help of Diaval in dragon form, and her wings which apparently can live separate from her and fuse back to her back just in time) but being a good guy doesn't kill him, and just leaves him -- to attack her from behind and fall to an anti-climatic death from a tower. Confusion added to disappointment when I suddenly wondered why Maleficent hadn't just told him that Aurora was awake.
Like, DUHH.
I so wish they had, to see what it would have stemmed. On the one hand, Maleficent's evil motivations were the loss of her wings, and Stefan's was the (impending) loss of his daughter, so once neither had the motivations they should have been able to bury the hatchet. That was my first thought, based on the simple assumption that Stefan loved his daughter, but then I considered the other hand -- that he might not have as much as I'd thought. This goes with the cursing scene -- it bothered me a lot that all he does to defend Aurora from evil-intending Maleficent is to stand there stupidly, asking her to please not to. He never lifts a finger to stop her, suggesting that his life was most important to him.
And perhaps his hatred of Maleficent was more deeply seeded -- and what started with concern for his daughter morphed into a revenge and power obsession, and guilt-suppression, until he lost sight of where it began. This makes sense with his cold reception of Aurora upon her return. So perhaps knowing she was awake wouldn't have made a difference. But the question is moot; he was never given a chance to go one way or another -- though either would have been interesting to see. Instead his character was cut short, along with my last hope of seeing anything remarkable come out of this movie.
In comparison to the previous 1,500 words of my nit-picking problems, other details of this movie left very little impression. Visually, it was occasionally not bad and slightly memorable, and for the most part the acting wasn't terrible -- though when it was terrible, it really was. The writing and plotting was cheap and filled with holes. And even as the best the film had to offer, Maleficent never interested me. Not being a fan of Angelina Jolie, I wished more screen time for every single character besides her (and those three super-annoying fairies), but Elle Fanning was left with nothing to do, Brenton Thwaites actually detracted from the movie, Sam Riley flew along under the radar, and the promising arc of Sharlto Copley's character turned out to be no more than a long fall and a sudden stop.
Actually, that a bit how the entire movie felt; very long fall; very sudden stop!
Once upon a time, not very long ago, there was a beloved entertainment genre, known as "fairytales." Fairytales were known for their fantasy settings, sweeping light romance, and clear-cut good vs. evil themes. But then some people grew tired of the simple, classic stories, and started a new trend of turning those tales on their heads and confusing the enjoyment right out of them -- Maleficent is one such product of that trend, and the poster child for everything ridiculous about it.
 |
| From the very beginning this story's manipulation is forced and awkward. I mean, this is what the heroine looks like. Lurking in the shadows. |
There are two kingdoms; one filled with humans, and the other with magical creatures and fairies. The most powerful being in the fairy land is Maleficent, just a girl, but equipped with huge horns, gigantic wings, and full of kindness and love for everyone -- just like all of her kin. Young Maleficent meets a human boy her age, Stefan, and the two slowly form a close friendship that eventually turns to love. Then without warning the boy is gone. Maleficent grows up into Angelina Jolie. Then the plot really starts rolling, when the human king attacks her land, for murky reasons of fear, jealousy, or some other nasty, unreasonable human feeling.
In the battle, it is important to note, Maleficent and her forces kill many soldiers, and suffer no casualties themselves. If you think that goes against the supposed strict peacefulness of the fairies, you're absolutely right. After the king is easily defeated, and on his deathbed from a fall caused by Maleficent, he promises the throne to the person who can avenge him, speaking to his officers and councilors, but his servant is also present, a grown up Stefan (and now Sharlto Copley). Stefan grew greedily ambitious over the years; for the throne, he goes to murder the person he supposedly loved as a boy. To a little of his credit, he can't do it, but he does mange to cut off and steal her wings, which gets him the throne all the same.
 |
| Well-played Stefan; you wanted to be a king when you grew up; now as a bonus you're also Sharlto Copley, and not even a murderer! |
Those wings must have housed all of Maleficent's goodness, because after they're gone, her transformation into the villainous, vengeful, and vile lady we all know is swift indeed. And her villain side makes much more sense than her good side. She enlists a crow (Sam Riley, when he is in human form) to be her spy and when he reports that the new king Stefan and his queen have had a daughter, she makes her move for revenge.
The obvious question now is why didn't she just go to the castle and kill Stefan immediately? Or maybe just take and eye for an eye (or eye for wing, as the case would be)? But no, her master plan of revenge is to curse his daughter. She is too good to murder the one she wants revenge on -- one who deserves it -- but she has no problem doing essentially the same to an innocent. She curses the baby girl, as we all know, to prick her finger on a spindle on the sixteenth birthday and fall into a sleep-like death (I think the technical term is actually "death-like sleep"). Only after Stefan begs her does she allow for a cure -- true love's kiss can break the curse, and nothing else -- this, because she knows true love doesn't exist; when they were young, he gave her a kiss saying it was true love's, and look at how they turned out.
 |
| This is how that turned out. |
The further the story goes, the less sensible it gets; the very next thing the king does is have every spindle in the land burned and their remains stored in the castle. What. Then, he sends the baby away from him and her mother to be raised by three undersized, spectacularly incompetent fairies. Baby Aurora would have died in their care if not for... the protection of Maleficent and Diaval the crow.
Then as time passes there's a bunch of time-filler, masquerading unconvincingly as plot as the fairies act stupid, Aurora grows up, (turning into Elle Fanning) and Maleficent follows her around, pretending to hate her. In my boredom, I did notice that Diaval was an interesting character; he pledges his service to Maleficent after she saves his life, and is singularly and faithfully devoted to his pledge. This doesn't keep him from speaking his mind when he thinks differently from her though; he genuinely cares for Aurora and doesn't attempt to hide it. For a while I thought it would be a great twist if he were the one capable of delivering the curse-breaking smooch.
 |
| Besides the feathers for hair he's not at all bad... |
Speaking of the smooch, when Prince Phillip (Brenton Thwaites) -- sporting literally the worst hairstyle ever -- shows up at Aurora's house looking for directions it was so awkward and uncomfortable that I wish they had just dispensed with the romance altogether and been done with it already. I guess they somewhat understood how important romance is to a fairytale after all; but not enough to put any effort into making it meaningful -- or even romantic.
A little sense long wanted is restored when Maleficent finally regrets cursing Aurora. That moment is the most compelling the character and actress ever gets. On her sixteenth birthday, Aurora discovers her parentage and her curse, and guesses that it came from Maleficent, sending her off to the castle, and not long after that, sound asleep in a bed.
 |
| No surprise there! |
The twist is actually legitimate. Over the years Maleficent came to love Aurora like a daughter, and after Phillip's kiss fails to do the trick, Maleficent gives her a farewell kiss on the forehead, promising to protect her even as she sleeps, and Aurora wakes up, without even a hint of a grudge, which was really very nice of her. The problem here being not that Maleficent's love shouldn't have been able to break the spell -- of course it should -- but the implication attached to Phillip's failure that fairytale-brand "true love" -- true, and romantic love -- doesn't exist. And the movie never gives us a reason to believe that it does. In the end Aurora and Phillip still have that super-awkward cutesy attraction, and it's played like a good thing. But, if his kiss didn't work, then he didn't love her, so why would they still end up together? The most obvious explanation is that selfless love and romantic love are mutually exclusive, and that is a conclusion that I do not appreciate.
 |
| Another explanation is "The Frozen Rule": "You can't love someone you just met." I take issue with that one too. |
With the climax comes the worst plot hole of the film, when Stefan discovers that Maleficent is in the castle and wages war on her in a parlor. Now, Stefan became an interesting character to me, and I even held out hope that he, like Maleficent, would get a redemptive turn in the end. But I shouldn't have. So Maleficent defeats him, (with the help of Diaval in dragon form, and her wings which apparently can live separate from her and fuse back to her back just in time) but being a good guy doesn't kill him, and just leaves him -- to attack her from behind and fall to an anti-climatic death from a tower. Confusion added to disappointment when I suddenly wondered why Maleficent hadn't just told him that Aurora was awake.
Like, DUHH.
I so wish they had, to see what it would have stemmed. On the one hand, Maleficent's evil motivations were the loss of her wings, and Stefan's was the (impending) loss of his daughter, so once neither had the motivations they should have been able to bury the hatchet. That was my first thought, based on the simple assumption that Stefan loved his daughter, but then I considered the other hand -- that he might not have as much as I'd thought. This goes with the cursing scene -- it bothered me a lot that all he does to defend Aurora from evil-intending Maleficent is to stand there stupidly, asking her to please not to. He never lifts a finger to stop her, suggesting that his life was most important to him.
 |
| "I'll just be over here.... destroying your daughter's life!" |
And perhaps his hatred of Maleficent was more deeply seeded -- and what started with concern for his daughter morphed into a revenge and power obsession, and guilt-suppression, until he lost sight of where it began. This makes sense with his cold reception of Aurora upon her return. So perhaps knowing she was awake wouldn't have made a difference. But the question is moot; he was never given a chance to go one way or another -- though either would have been interesting to see. Instead his character was cut short, along with my last hope of seeing anything remarkable come out of this movie.
In comparison to the previous 1,500 words of my nit-picking problems, other details of this movie left very little impression. Visually, it was occasionally not bad and slightly memorable, and for the most part the acting wasn't terrible -- though when it was terrible, it really was. The writing and plotting was cheap and filled with holes. And even as the best the film had to offer, Maleficent never interested me. Not being a fan of Angelina Jolie, I wished more screen time for every single character besides her (and those three super-annoying fairies), but Elle Fanning was left with nothing to do, Brenton Thwaites actually detracted from the movie, Sam Riley flew along under the radar, and the promising arc of Sharlto Copley's character turned out to be no more than a long fall and a sudden stop.
Actually, that a bit how the entire movie felt; very long fall; very sudden stop!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)