In January I saw The Greatest Showman, and I've just realized that I never wrote a review for it! Oops. I have a perfect record of reviewing all movies I've seen in theaters since I started reviewing movies, so I definitely can't let that one fall through the cracks. Sadly, we didn't have time for The Death Cure, so that's been pushed into this month's agenda -- top priority.
February has lots to talk about -- good and bad -- so let's get to it! What looks good to you this month?
Peter Rabbit
Feb 9th; PG
Domhnall. Sweetie. What are you doing? Good grief this looks bad. At least all Daisy Ridley and Margot Robbie had to be convinced of was to lend their voices -- and I don't think James Corden needed convincing. But how in the world did they get Domhnall Gleeson to agree to do the live-action portion? They must have paid him a ton. He does look exactly like Mr. McGregor, so maybe they thought it was worth it. Even with this cast, I'll be steering clear. Far, far clear.
The 15:17 to Paris
Feb 9th: PG-13
Okay. First of all, this is an awesome true story. Second of all, it's a really neat idea to cast the real guys as themselves. But -- I still have that reservation on the artistic side that true stories rarely make good movies due to un-cinematic structure. Clint Eastwood is at the helm, and it's clear that a lot of effort was put into the movie, so who knows, maybe this will be the next Apollo 13, or, something close to it anyway. I'm definitely interested just because the attack on the train is supposed to play out exactly how it did in real life, so that would be cool to see. At any rate, reservations or no, this is one to keep an eye on.
The Female Brain
Feb 9th; NR
This movie doesn't look particularly good, but I can, occasionally, have simple tastes, and this has Toby Kebbell in it, so I'm on board.... for whenever its streaming on Amazon or what have you. The differences in the ways male and female brains work is great fodder for comedy, so we'll see if this movie mined the truth in that area, or if they just used tired old stereotypes and worked off the top of their head. That's sadly the more likely option.
Basmati Blues
Feb 9th; NR
All I'd heard about this movie was that it was a Brie Larson film and it was terrible. And I thought that was pretty strange because how could Brie Larson be in a movie and not make it at least decent by her presence? Then I watched the trailer, and it all made sense. Larson probably does enhance it, but it really looks THAT bad. It's American trying to feel Bollywood by making it a musical romance, but it all feels extremely cheap and weird. I may have to watch it streaming just to confirm. It really doesn't make sense.
Black Panther
Feb 16th; PG-13
This is the big one of the month I guess, but to me it could go either way. The trailer is bursting with style and energy, so if that translates to the actual movie it should be on those points alone a solid flick. And it's Marvel, so you know they have their winning formula for crowd-pleasing movies. But I'm personally getting tired of the formula, and if all the movie is, is cool and stylish action played over a fourmula plot, then I might not be disappointed, but I won't be impressed either. And I want to be impressed. Also, early reviews are doing a lot of praising of what the movie "has to say" and, as you may know from my opinion on Civil War, I hate it when movies preach at you. Preaching does not equal plot or character development. Still, there's a chance here, with a great cast and a lead character I already like, so let's go -- impress me if you can!
Early Man
Feb 16th; PG
I'm trying to figure out if I'm required to see this, because on one hand, I've fallen in love with stop-motion and have been trying to watch all stop-motion movies I can find. On the other hand this lumpy clay style of making the dolls is my least favorite. And Chicken Run practically traumatized me as a kid. But then, I like the comedy style, and it has a good cast (Tom Hiddleston, Eddie Redmayne!) and a neat plot. The great thing about stop-motion is that it's so hard to do, people don't actually bother to make the movie unless it's a story they care about. So... yeah. I guess I am pretty much required to watch it sometime... but not only that -- I think I want to!
The Party
Feb 16th: R
I see Cillian Murphy, and I'm sold. Simple. Beyond that, this one has more potential than the one I'll probably watch only because Toby Kebbell is in it -- this one looks genuinely funny and genuinely dramatic (though it may still prove not to be my cup of tea) and I really, really, like that it's in black and white. Like the appeal level for the B&W is just under Cillain Murphy. And besides him there's quite a few familiar and talented faces. Good praise among the critics, which is a good sign too. I would like to RSVP as "coming."
The Boy Downstairs
Feb 16th; PG-13
Classic -- and I mean CLASSIC indie rom-com-dram. It has all the earmarks. The lead is even a writer. I'd watch it. That's all.
Annihilation
Feb 23rd; R
Well, I don't care for Natalie Portman, but other than her being the lead, this movie has nothing in it that isn't interesting to me. It makes me think of Arrival, except with horror and fantasy-feeling scifi added in. Based on a book, so now I'm gonna have to check that out and see if it's worth a read. I'm always excited to see a big-budged, full-fledged scifi film coming round the bend, and this one looks so cool that the Natalie Portman thing isn't even leaving a dent. Plus there's Oscar Isaac, even if he is probably in a coma most of the film, so that helps a lot. But yeah, I am here for the scifi!
Game Night
Feb 23rd; R
This trailer is on the verge of being funny. On the verge. It's so close that I want to watch the movie to see if it actually succeeds there. I don't think Rachel McAdams is capable of doing pure comedy. Heck, I don't think Jason Bateman is capable of pure comedy, but he at least has loads more experience. If they put enough drama in the mix it might work, but people like Bill Murray are legends for a reason. I'm not sure about Kyle Chandler, either. Actually, the funniest person in this trailer is the dude from USS Callister and he didn't even say anything. (I'm sure he has a bigger part in the movie.) The premise is really good, and if they go where they seem to want to, making a Clue-type movie, it could be good. But, I don't think they're going to succeed. They don't appear to... have all the pieces.
Mute
Feb 23rd; NR
Duncan Jones' new original film is a Netflix release, and I just forgot about all of the above movies. I want to see this so much and I won't even have to leave my house to do it! The trailer is pretty vague and confusing, but I only watched it for this post anyway -- I would would watch anything by Duncan Jones without a trailer. Moon is one of my all-time favorite scifi movies, and Source Code is also great film. Warcraft was pretty bad, but hey, that one wasn't original, so... This one stars Alexander Skarsgård (of the Skarsgård acting family) as a mute guy. And Paul Rudd is in it. The scifi world looks awesome too, but even without all that I'd still be here. Because Duncan Jones.
Altered Carbon
Feb 2nd; Netflix
Don't get this and the above mixed up -- the trailer covers are laughably similar! If Mute doesn't count as scifi noir, then this one certainly does. Blade Runner vibes everywhere. This one's a Netflix TV series, which has it's own pros and cons. And if I base it solely on the trailer I might not like this one as much even with noir mystery element, but we'll see. Oh yes, we will see. I now officially declare February to be a Month of Science Fiction. I am a very happy camper right now. Even if all the scifi releases disappoint, right now, the anticipation is great.
Showing posts with label Tom Hiddleston. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tom Hiddleston. Show all posts
Thursday, February 1, 2018
Saturday, November 4, 2017
Thor: Ragnarok
Spoilers!
It's Thor's third movie, and he breaks out of the mold, traveling to before-unseen worlds, making new friends, and getting a bold haircut. Ragnarok is the Norse apocalypse, and Thor (Chris Hemsworth) thinks he's got it all under control, but then the goddess of death, Hela (Cate Blanchett) is unleashed, and overthrows Asgard while Thor is stuck on a forgotten planet with Loki (Tom Hiddleston) fighting in gladiator matches with Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) for the entertainment of Jeff Goldblum. And, of course, the entertainment of us.
This movie sells itself on entertainment, and sells itself BIG. Its success in that area is pretty undeniable, unless you are completely against the kind of entertainment Marvel produces. All the earmarks of Marvel Entertainment are there, and cranked up so high that it sparkles like lightning in Thor's fingers. It's full of dazzling colors and shapes and is filmed with bold visual flair; it runs a mile a minute, always moving with action, or bantering conversation, or cracking a joke. Entertaining, entertaining, entertaining -- for the whole runtime, you barely have an opportunity to stop and wonder why you should care.
That may or may not be by design, but it might as well be, because if the film slowed down enough for you to think to yourself, "Well that was fun, but when will Thor face his demons? How is his relationship with Loki gonna develop? What are the stakes here if Hela wins?" then you might begin to see that there's no meaning to be found among all that razzle-dazzle. The boxes do get ticked, but only on the most base level. Like, Thor does have demons to face in a vague "all seems hopeless" moment -- and learns the exact same lesson that 15-year-old Peter Parker did a few months ago, but with significantly less magnificence than Spidey.
And Loki and Thor clash amusingly as Loki is bad then good then bad then good then bad and then good again. (Yes, that's an accurate number of flip-flops.) But their complicated relationship isn't explored so much as it's referenced. "Remember that time you faked your death and took over Asgard? Yeah, that made me mad." When they talk about how Loki being mischievous is just his nature, and Loki looks like he's wondering if it really is, things begin to touch on something deeper, but it goes no further than that. In the end when Thor assumes he's gone bad again and says if he was really there he'd hug him... and then he is there... how about we get to see that hug? Why is this movie so afraid of emotion?
Hela is literally destroying Asgard and killing its citizens, and in the end Thor must let Ragnarok come upon Asgard and destroy it just to defeat her. This is big, serious stuff, but it doesn't feel it. It's done so flippantly. Honestly the movie's best arc was my man Karl Urban's, who goes from big doofus, to aspiring evil, to moral questioning, to cool and heroic, all as a side character. And then of course his death is careless, though I guess it was meant to be emotional. Hulk is there for the laughs, and the new girl Valkyrie (Tessa Thompson) is cool and tough, but neither get more than the requisite glimpse into the depths they might have reached.
But yeah -- haircut. Hulk the superstar. Jeff Goldblum just being himself. Hela's horn helmet. The wacky trash planet. Director Taika Waititi's overdone cameo as rock-monster guy. And they play Immigrant Song TWICE. Who needs character or themes anyway? Well, I do -- but the fact is, I enjoyed watching this movie. I was ready to be entertained and the film was eager to entertain. But now the entertainment is over and I'm left with no connection to the movie. There's nothing to hold on to. And that kills rewatchability. If I ever watch it again I'll probably sigh at the jokes instead of laugh, and wish for the Shakespearean character drama of the first film, which rises higher in my esteem with each new installment.
Enjoy the spectacle, but don't look for a heart among the spectacular chaos; you won't find one. On the surface, Ragnarok is as toned and muscled as its title hero. Underneath, it's actually as bare-boned as the slack-jawed skeleton that's hanging out with him at the beginning. There's a certain charm to being duped with so much careless glee, but the spell can only last so long.
It's Thor's third movie, and he breaks out of the mold, traveling to before-unseen worlds, making new friends, and getting a bold haircut. Ragnarok is the Norse apocalypse, and Thor (Chris Hemsworth) thinks he's got it all under control, but then the goddess of death, Hela (Cate Blanchett) is unleashed, and overthrows Asgard while Thor is stuck on a forgotten planet with Loki (Tom Hiddleston) fighting in gladiator matches with Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) for the entertainment of Jeff Goldblum. And, of course, the entertainment of us.
 |
| One thing's for sure: that Led Zeppelin song is the movie's MVP. |
This movie sells itself on entertainment, and sells itself BIG. Its success in that area is pretty undeniable, unless you are completely against the kind of entertainment Marvel produces. All the earmarks of Marvel Entertainment are there, and cranked up so high that it sparkles like lightning in Thor's fingers. It's full of dazzling colors and shapes and is filmed with bold visual flair; it runs a mile a minute, always moving with action, or bantering conversation, or cracking a joke. Entertaining, entertaining, entertaining -- for the whole runtime, you barely have an opportunity to stop and wonder why you should care.
That may or may not be by design, but it might as well be, because if the film slowed down enough for you to think to yourself, "Well that was fun, but when will Thor face his demons? How is his relationship with Loki gonna develop? What are the stakes here if Hela wins?" then you might begin to see that there's no meaning to be found among all that razzle-dazzle. The boxes do get ticked, but only on the most base level. Like, Thor does have demons to face in a vague "all seems hopeless" moment -- and learns the exact same lesson that 15-year-old Peter Parker did a few months ago, but with significantly less magnificence than Spidey.
 |
| It works best as an action-comedy. But even comedies need some kind of emotional grounding. |
And Loki and Thor clash amusingly as Loki is bad then good then bad then good then bad and then good again. (Yes, that's an accurate number of flip-flops.) But their complicated relationship isn't explored so much as it's referenced. "Remember that time you faked your death and took over Asgard? Yeah, that made me mad." When they talk about how Loki being mischievous is just his nature, and Loki looks like he's wondering if it really is, things begin to touch on something deeper, but it goes no further than that. In the end when Thor assumes he's gone bad again and says if he was really there he'd hug him... and then he is there... how about we get to see that hug? Why is this movie so afraid of emotion?
Hela is literally destroying Asgard and killing its citizens, and in the end Thor must let Ragnarok come upon Asgard and destroy it just to defeat her. This is big, serious stuff, but it doesn't feel it. It's done so flippantly. Honestly the movie's best arc was my man Karl Urban's, who goes from big doofus, to aspiring evil, to moral questioning, to cool and heroic, all as a side character. And then of course his death is careless, though I guess it was meant to be emotional. Hulk is there for the laughs, and the new girl Valkyrie (Tessa Thompson) is cool and tough, but neither get more than the requisite glimpse into the depths they might have reached.
 |
| Everything look great! But, everything looks great. |
But yeah -- haircut. Hulk the superstar. Jeff Goldblum just being himself. Hela's horn helmet. The wacky trash planet. Director Taika Waititi's overdone cameo as rock-monster guy. And they play Immigrant Song TWICE. Who needs character or themes anyway? Well, I do -- but the fact is, I enjoyed watching this movie. I was ready to be entertained and the film was eager to entertain. But now the entertainment is over and I'm left with no connection to the movie. There's nothing to hold on to. And that kills rewatchability. If I ever watch it again I'll probably sigh at the jokes instead of laugh, and wish for the Shakespearean character drama of the first film, which rises higher in my esteem with each new installment.
Enjoy the spectacle, but don't look for a heart among the spectacular chaos; you won't find one. On the surface, Ragnarok is as toned and muscled as its title hero. Underneath, it's actually as bare-boned as the slack-jawed skeleton that's hanging out with him at the beginning. There's a certain charm to being duped with so much careless glee, but the spell can only last so long.
Wednesday, November 1, 2017
Upcoming Movie Roundup - November
No surprise I didn't go to the theater in October. However, I did watch/have been watching the TV shows I mentioned. The Gifted turned out to be disappointing even with my mild expectations, and drags terribly and yes, has lots of meaningless drama. Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency got off to a bit of a rough start by not nailing the opening episode like Season 1 did, but it's still plenty enjoyable and I look forward to watching the episodes. Stranger Things broke my heart. There's fan-service everywhere and what remnants there are the are like Season 1 feels disingenuous. The first five episodes could have been two, and the show picks up significantly at Chapter 6, when the plot really gets started, but there's other problems that hold it back even then. I haven't written a review for it yet but I need to, hopefully soon so I can stop being sad and wondering what went wrong.
This month there is a must-see, because for some reason I still watch every single Marvel release in theaters. Although I'd see this one anyway! I wouldn't be surprised if I saw two or three of these movies this month, but I guess we'll see. What looks good to you?
Thor: Ragnarok
Nov 3rd; PG-13
This one's practically out already and already has loads of pleased reviews from critics and fans. So I have no doubt it's a good Marvel movie. That in itself doesn't mean much to me, since I've disliked plenty of "good" Marvel movies, but -- I do have high hopes for this one. I like the style of the director Taika Waititi and think his sense of humor would work excellently with Thor. And the trailer was just brimming with galactic style -- and Led Zeppelin, which is a great sign if you ask me! Looks like Thor has finally gotten a movie worthy of him! Cate Blanchett looks awesome as the villain, and I'm happy to see Loki back again, and there's also Karl Urban and Jeff Goldblum. And Hulk of course. Time to Ragnarok and roll!
Battlecreek
Nov 3rd(limited); NR
This month in "movies I want to see because a certain actor is in them." This time featuring -- Bill Skarsgård! Ever since IT came out I've been on the hunt for more movies starring him, where he doesn't wear clown makeup the whole time, and ideally doesn't terrorize children either. This looks like a nice option: A southern romantic drama, that looks like it has just enough of an edge to make it interesting.
Murder on the Orient Express
Nov 10th; PG-13
Well I've already seen a film adaptation of this, so I know who-done-it, but I'll always be up for another version, especially a bigger-budgeted one, with big-name stars. Kenneth Branagh I seriously doubt will be able to match David Suchet's Poirot (even with that incredible mustache); him directing is the real exciting bit, since I love his style. He just seems to fit with Agatha Christie. (I wish he'd do a take on And Then There Were None, but I digress.) Practically everyone else in the movie is a recognizable name, but I'm most excited to see Daisy Ridley do something other than Star Wars. Hopefully this will be one to remember! (I should read the book before it comes out...)
Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri
Nov 10th; R
This is a nice, strange one. Black comedy, extreme violence, Frances McDormand. She always seems to absolutely fantastic, but this looks like the kind of plot that she'd really, really shine in. Also, Sam Rockwell. always a winner. This movie looks quite good actually. Not the the kind I'd necessarily go to the theater for, but I'd like to see it at some point.
Justice League
Nov 17th; PG-13
So I guess Superman's gonna wait til the end of the movie to return, because when you have Superman why do you need anyone else, right? I'm sorry, but I'm done with this. Wonder Woman and her movie was great, but I doubt she can save this movie, and I'm so done. It looks exactly the same and BvS, and I'm just done. (They're copying Stranger Things by playing a moody version of Heroes, and that's hilarious and I'm done.) I won't even be surprised if I end up going to see it because of how big it is, but if I do it will be with rolling eyes, because I'm done. And the review will likely be extremely cynical, because I am just plain done. I'm done.
Revolt
Nov 17th(limited); R
This month in "small budget scifi films I want to see because I'm a scifi junkie" -- featuring Lee Pace in this scifi actioner. If I had to venture a guess, it's gonna be very typical plot-wise, but it doesn't have the worst special effects, and Lee Pace is a nice plus too. I'm beginning to wonder when I'll actually get to see all these indie scifi's I've been finding. I guess that's why it's good I list them here, so I won't forget about them!
Coco
Nov 22nd; PG
"Oh yeah, Pixar is releasing a movie this year." Remember when the Pixar releases were the biggest events of the year? Did that change just because I have a grown up taste in movies now, or has Pixar really slid down that far? Ever since Brave in 2012 every new Pixar flick I've either not seen or been disappointed with. I'm not gonna write this one off of course, but there's not any excitement either. I haven't seen The Book of Life, which is what it's drawing comparisons to, so to me it's like the Spanish version of Corpse Bride meets Kubo and the Two Strings, which is interesting enough, but also kinda makes me wish it was a stop-motion animation. I like those. Anyway, I've rambled for long enough. Keeping on eye on this one.
The Man Who Invented Christmas
Nov 22nd; PG
Granted, it's not exactly a movie anyone was asking for, but it may turn out to be one we need anyway. Dan Steven's as crazy Charles Dickens? Grumpy Christopher Plummer as Scrooge? Not bad at all. Looks fun, family friendly, and about as energetic as a movie about writing can be! I should definitely read A Christmas Carol before I see this. Anything less would just be disrespectful!
This month there is a must-see, because for some reason I still watch every single Marvel release in theaters. Although I'd see this one anyway! I wouldn't be surprised if I saw two or three of these movies this month, but I guess we'll see. What looks good to you?
Thor: Ragnarok
Nov 3rd; PG-13
This one's practically out already and already has loads of pleased reviews from critics and fans. So I have no doubt it's a good Marvel movie. That in itself doesn't mean much to me, since I've disliked plenty of "good" Marvel movies, but -- I do have high hopes for this one. I like the style of the director Taika Waititi and think his sense of humor would work excellently with Thor. And the trailer was just brimming with galactic style -- and Led Zeppelin, which is a great sign if you ask me! Looks like Thor has finally gotten a movie worthy of him! Cate Blanchett looks awesome as the villain, and I'm happy to see Loki back again, and there's also Karl Urban and Jeff Goldblum. And Hulk of course. Time to Ragnarok and roll!
Battlecreek
Nov 3rd(limited); NR
This month in "movies I want to see because a certain actor is in them." This time featuring -- Bill Skarsgård! Ever since IT came out I've been on the hunt for more movies starring him, where he doesn't wear clown makeup the whole time, and ideally doesn't terrorize children either. This looks like a nice option: A southern romantic drama, that looks like it has just enough of an edge to make it interesting.
Murder on the Orient Express
Nov 10th; PG-13
Well I've already seen a film adaptation of this, so I know who-done-it, but I'll always be up for another version, especially a bigger-budgeted one, with big-name stars. Kenneth Branagh I seriously doubt will be able to match David Suchet's Poirot (even with that incredible mustache); him directing is the real exciting bit, since I love his style. He just seems to fit with Agatha Christie. (I wish he'd do a take on And Then There Were None, but I digress.) Practically everyone else in the movie is a recognizable name, but I'm most excited to see Daisy Ridley do something other than Star Wars. Hopefully this will be one to remember! (I should read the book before it comes out...)
Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri
Nov 10th; R
This is a nice, strange one. Black comedy, extreme violence, Frances McDormand. She always seems to absolutely fantastic, but this looks like the kind of plot that she'd really, really shine in. Also, Sam Rockwell. always a winner. This movie looks quite good actually. Not the the kind I'd necessarily go to the theater for, but I'd like to see it at some point.
Justice League
Nov 17th; PG-13
So I guess Superman's gonna wait til the end of the movie to return, because when you have Superman why do you need anyone else, right? I'm sorry, but I'm done with this. Wonder Woman and her movie was great, but I doubt she can save this movie, and I'm so done. It looks exactly the same and BvS, and I'm just done. (They're copying Stranger Things by playing a moody version of Heroes, and that's hilarious and I'm done.) I won't even be surprised if I end up going to see it because of how big it is, but if I do it will be with rolling eyes, because I'm done. And the review will likely be extremely cynical, because I am just plain done. I'm done.
Revolt
Nov 17th(limited); R
This month in "small budget scifi films I want to see because I'm a scifi junkie" -- featuring Lee Pace in this scifi actioner. If I had to venture a guess, it's gonna be very typical plot-wise, but it doesn't have the worst special effects, and Lee Pace is a nice plus too. I'm beginning to wonder when I'll actually get to see all these indie scifi's I've been finding. I guess that's why it's good I list them here, so I won't forget about them!
Coco
Nov 22nd; PG
"Oh yeah, Pixar is releasing a movie this year." Remember when the Pixar releases were the biggest events of the year? Did that change just because I have a grown up taste in movies now, or has Pixar really slid down that far? Ever since Brave in 2012 every new Pixar flick I've either not seen or been disappointed with. I'm not gonna write this one off of course, but there's not any excitement either. I haven't seen The Book of Life, which is what it's drawing comparisons to, so to me it's like the Spanish version of Corpse Bride meets Kubo and the Two Strings, which is interesting enough, but also kinda makes me wish it was a stop-motion animation. I like those. Anyway, I've rambled for long enough. Keeping on eye on this one.
The Man Who Invented Christmas
Nov 22nd; PG
Granted, it's not exactly a movie anyone was asking for, but it may turn out to be one we need anyway. Dan Steven's as crazy Charles Dickens? Grumpy Christopher Plummer as Scrooge? Not bad at all. Looks fun, family friendly, and about as energetic as a movie about writing can be! I should definitely read A Christmas Carol before I see this. Anything less would just be disrespectful!
Saturday, March 11, 2017
Kong: Skull Island
Kong is back, and literally bigger than ever. It's the 1970's, so you know the music is good, and the group of explorers, scientists, and soldiers that go to Skull Island is extra, extra large -- full of red shirts, and people who don't need to survive to the end of the movie. Mayhem is in the air. And it smells delicious.
The movie is directed by Jordan Vogt-Roberts, a name I didn't recognize at first, but his style I did. He directed The Kings of Summer, a movie that most are less likely to have seen than Kong, but a great movie with a love for nature and an eye for stylish macro shots. That style translates magnificently to this film, and is enhanced to epic proportions. As the steadily dwindling group explores the island we get to explore it too, through the camera's wondering eye. The beauty and the creativity is not what you conventionally see in a monster flick, but with how well it works you'd think it would be.
Vogt-Roberts did not hold back on any visual aspect of the movie -- any. The location shooting and the attention to detail for the era made it almost impossible for me to shake the feeling that I was actually watching a movie from the 70's -- an unexpected but welcome feeling. Of course the special effects were miles better than anything 40 years old could give us, and in fact were a good distance better than what most CGI-heavy flicks crank out these days too. This movie was made to be a visual feast of epic entertainment, and there was no skimping on achieving that goal.
I only have one question: how did they manage to collect this cast? A bunch of them hail from (or will soon join) Marvel movies -- Tom Hiddleston is the cool-and-collected tracker-for-hire, Brie Larson is the spirited war photographer, Samuel L. Jackson is the squad leader, John C. Reilly is oddball scene-stealing highlight of the whole movie, and Shea Whigham, and Toby Kebbell (yes I'm counting Fant4stic) are soldiers. (Kebbell also provided some facial mo-cap for Kong, though the vast majority of Kong was Terry Notary.) Otherwise, there's John Goodman as the expedition instigator, and his scientist colleges Corey Hawkins and Tian Jing. Jason Mitchell and Thomas Mann round out the soldiers with memorable roles. I said it was a big cast! And that's just the people who, if they die, you feel sad for.
The deaths are pretty sad too, in spite of the overwhelmingly fun tone of the film; or maybe because of it, with dramatic contrast. The characters were defined well by all having their little niche or quirk which made them memorable, but they were also underdeveloped in the classic action flick way. It seemed particularly as though Hiddleston and Larson's characters were purposefully being held back -- saving the development for sequels perhaps. Still, they were effortlessly charming together. I was on board with this film since Tom was announced to star, and he didn't let me down.
John C. Reilly stole the whole movie of course, was hilarious and simultaneously the backbone of the film's heart, which yes, it did have plenty of for its genre. Another who unexpectedly left a big impression was Toby Kebbell's human role. I've always been interested in his work but was so far unable to properly appreciate it due to disappointing role choices and lots of motion capture parts. Because of how expressive he is, he's great at mo-cap, but that means that without the CGI translation he's even better -- and here he is finally a live-action, well-written, sympathetic character, and thus he has finally turned my head. And he was the only character whose name I learned!
In my favorite scene he comes across Kong at a lake and watches the giant ape take a drink -- the excess water sounding like a waterfall as it pours back into the lake -- and then battle a giant lake-squid and eat it in a humorous manner. And that pretty much sums up the whole movie for me. It's odd, ridiculous, epic and funny, with realistic attention to detail, and there's a bunch of faces in the background who look really good under a macro lens.
There were a few aspects that could have been improved without creating an imbalance. The ending was a bit sudden and messy, character's names are nice to know, and whenever the plot strayed from the basic goal it couldn't spend enough time away to satisfy and threads were cut short. But, mostly, the things you'd instinctively think are flaws were really conscious decisions for the sake of the tone and style of the movie. Focusing on character, or going deep into a moral themes or a complex plot is all well and good, but Kong included those things only as far as they didn't detracted from the beautiful, gleeful spectacle -- its priority. And considering that this is a movie about a fantastical island full of jumbo-sized monsters and wacky fantasy creatures that do battle with each other, I feel like the priorities were in the exact right place.
 |
| And a bit like monkey breath? |
The movie is directed by Jordan Vogt-Roberts, a name I didn't recognize at first, but his style I did. He directed The Kings of Summer, a movie that most are less likely to have seen than Kong, but a great movie with a love for nature and an eye for stylish macro shots. That style translates magnificently to this film, and is enhanced to epic proportions. As the steadily dwindling group explores the island we get to explore it too, through the camera's wondering eye. The beauty and the creativity is not what you conventionally see in a monster flick, but with how well it works you'd think it would be.
Vogt-Roberts did not hold back on any visual aspect of the movie -- any. The location shooting and the attention to detail for the era made it almost impossible for me to shake the feeling that I was actually watching a movie from the 70's -- an unexpected but welcome feeling. Of course the special effects were miles better than anything 40 years old could give us, and in fact were a good distance better than what most CGI-heavy flicks crank out these days too. This movie was made to be a visual feast of epic entertainment, and there was no skimping on achieving that goal.
 |
| Every sequence was a new array of colors and shapes and textures and immaculate focusing and sweet music... |
I only have one question: how did they manage to collect this cast? A bunch of them hail from (or will soon join) Marvel movies -- Tom Hiddleston is the cool-and-collected tracker-for-hire, Brie Larson is the spirited war photographer, Samuel L. Jackson is the squad leader, John C. Reilly is oddball scene-stealing highlight of the whole movie, and Shea Whigham, and Toby Kebbell (yes I'm counting Fant4stic) are soldiers. (Kebbell also provided some facial mo-cap for Kong, though the vast majority of Kong was Terry Notary.) Otherwise, there's John Goodman as the expedition instigator, and his scientist colleges Corey Hawkins and Tian Jing. Jason Mitchell and Thomas Mann round out the soldiers with memorable roles. I said it was a big cast! And that's just the people who, if they die, you feel sad for.
The deaths are pretty sad too, in spite of the overwhelmingly fun tone of the film; or maybe because of it, with dramatic contrast. The characters were defined well by all having their little niche or quirk which made them memorable, but they were also underdeveloped in the classic action flick way. It seemed particularly as though Hiddleston and Larson's characters were purposefully being held back -- saving the development for sequels perhaps. Still, they were effortlessly charming together. I was on board with this film since Tom was announced to star, and he didn't let me down.
 |
| Even though he was a little pointless. I think the movie got a few conflicting rewrites. You can almost see the plot that was removed. |
John C. Reilly stole the whole movie of course, was hilarious and simultaneously the backbone of the film's heart, which yes, it did have plenty of for its genre. Another who unexpectedly left a big impression was Toby Kebbell's human role. I've always been interested in his work but was so far unable to properly appreciate it due to disappointing role choices and lots of motion capture parts. Because of how expressive he is, he's great at mo-cap, but that means that without the CGI translation he's even better -- and here he is finally a live-action, well-written, sympathetic character, and thus he has finally turned my head. And he was the only character whose name I learned!
In my favorite scene he comes across Kong at a lake and watches the giant ape take a drink -- the excess water sounding like a waterfall as it pours back into the lake -- and then battle a giant lake-squid and eat it in a humorous manner. And that pretty much sums up the whole movie for me. It's odd, ridiculous, epic and funny, with realistic attention to detail, and there's a bunch of faces in the background who look really good under a macro lens.
 |
| Pretty location, pretty filming, pretty people. |
There were a few aspects that could have been improved without creating an imbalance. The ending was a bit sudden and messy, character's names are nice to know, and whenever the plot strayed from the basic goal it couldn't spend enough time away to satisfy and threads were cut short. But, mostly, the things you'd instinctively think are flaws were really conscious decisions for the sake of the tone and style of the movie. Focusing on character, or going deep into a moral themes or a complex plot is all well and good, but Kong included those things only as far as they didn't detracted from the beautiful, gleeful spectacle -- its priority. And considering that this is a movie about a fantastical island full of jumbo-sized monsters and wacky fantasy creatures that do battle with each other, I feel like the priorities were in the exact right place.
Wednesday, March 1, 2017
Upcoming Movie Roundup - March
In February, The Lego Batman Movie turned out to be every bit the awesome must-see flick for every age that its predecessor was! Read about how awesome and hilarious I thought it was here! No other movies tempted me last month, but I am watching Legion on FX, and so far it is quite excellent.
March marks the beginning of 2017's highly anticipated movie lineup, with big release after big release. I'm sure I'll get to the theater at least once! What looks good to you? Are any of your most anticipated 2017 movies releasing this month?
Logan
Mar 3rd, R
Hugh Jackman's Wolverine has always been my favorite thing about the X-Men franchise, but his solo movies have never been quite what they should be. Maybe with Logan, his run will end with changing that! This one's already got excellent reviews from critics, and they finally buckled down and gave him an R-rated movie -- something I am all for on the counts of violence and language if the story calls for it. Annoyingly, there is also brief nudity, and while it's a good sign that the movie isn't filled with nudity and sex, that brief inclusion will almost certainly cause my family to wait for the DVD.
Before I Fall
Mar 3rd, PG-13
Am I a sucker for "Groundhog Day" movies? Yes, yes I am. This one mixes the fun gimmick with high school drama for a popular girl who lives the same day over and over -- ending each day dying in a car crash -- and begins to wonder if her life really is as great as she thinks. It's unlikely that this movie will reach the great levels of Groundhog Day, or even Edge of Tomorrow, but that doesn't at all mean that it's not going to be a worthwhile movie in its own right. I hope it will be, and I'm curious to see for myself.
Table 19
Mar 3rd, PG-13
Cute and possibly cynical dramedy with possible romance starring Anna Kendrick, anyone? Yeah, this is one of those chick-flicks that just seems like a no-brianer, with the charm and quirky appeal the trailer exhibits.
Kong: Skull Island
Mar 10th, PG-13
Look -- I'm under no delusion about this movie that it'll be anything but ridiculous. The first trailers tried to evoke some kind of seriousness and depth, but this one seems most honest. Ridiculous. Stylish, action-packed, star-studded ridiculousness, and as long as it's fun -- which seems a promising possibility -- I'm on board for the adventure! Seriously, this is the style of movie that Kong was meant for.
Beauty and the Beast
Mar 17th, PG
Full disclosure: I still think the animation of the Beast's face looks bad. Like, I'm worried about how much of a distraction it'll be bad. Otherwise, I'm excited this live action version of the story. Emma Watson looks good; Dan Stevens will hopefully be worth casting for the little time his face will be on screen; and I can already sense that Luke Evan's Gaston will the scene-stealing favorite. There's a part of me that doubts the film will be able to match the latest Cinderella's grand perfection, but as long as it can recapture even a spark of the magic of the original -- which I think it has based on the trailer -- everything should be great.
The Belko Experiment
Mar 17th, R
Normally this is the kind of movie where I'd look at the trailer, scoff pleasantly, move along, and watch it on TV three years later. However, this one was co-written by James Gunn, and that brings a lot of interest. Especially after I heard that the film has a lot of comedy (which you can't tell from this trailer) plus a cast full of familiar faces including John Gallagher Jr. in the apparent lead, and Sean Gunn and Michael Rooker. So I still might not see it until it hits the TV, or who knows. But now it's on my list.
Power Rangers
Mar 24th, PG-13
Tee-hee. I feel a little bit silly for including this one, especially since I can't claim nostalgia, having never watched the TV show, but I dunno, it looks fun. Cheesy, cliched, and probably too young for me, but fun. There's just something classically appealing about actioners like this, that don't feel the need to take risks and break new ground but to just do what works. Or maybe what doesn't work because this has all the earmarks of a movie with a good first act, a crumbling second act, and a distracted, directionless third that ruins everything. If that's not the case, I'll probably watch it. But to be honest, I'll probably watch it anyway.
Life
Mar 24th, NR
What, Christmas already? I love space travel movies; space travel movies that are subtly science fiction, using science to speculate into the near future, and most importantly space scifi movies where everything steadily plummets into crazy, terrifying horror. Yep, it appears to be Christmas. This one stars Ryan Reynolds, the lovely Rebecca Ferguson, Jake Gyllenhaal, and Hirouki Sanada (of Sunshine, a favorite of the sub-genre). It's not rated yet so we'll see about that, but I have high hopes. Very, very, extraterrestrially high.
Ghost in the Shell
Mar 31st, NR
This one definitely rides on what the rating ends up being. If it's appropriate enough, I'll be very interested, mainly just for the world-building aspect, which looks crazy and extremely unique -- although I suppose it isn't so much for people who watched the anime. Scarlett Johansson stars. It looks very stylish and not a little creepy.
The Zookeeper's Wife
Mar 31st, PG-13
A war drama rounds out the genres of the month. This one stars Jessica Chastain and tells the true story of the proprietor of a Polish zoo and his wife in 1939 who harbor Jews in the zoo and their home as Poland is invaded by Nazis. Daniel Bruhl also stars as the main villain. Jessica Chastain is the main appeal with this for me, but the unique and true aspects of it also seem to indicate an interesting historic film. Keeping an eye on this one.
Iron Fist
Premieres Mar 17th on Netflix
As great as this month looks movie-wise, there is nothing I am more excited for than Iron Fist. I have not been this excited for a Netflix Marvel show since the first season of Daredevil. I have high hopes, but not quite as much confidence. I know the potential is there, but if they are just getting this out there so the Defenders can happen things might not be as great as they should be. I will be very upset if that happens, because with what I can see of the characters and the premise, this show could be a new favorite of mine easily. I've got a lot riding on this -- don't let me down, Marvel!
March marks the beginning of 2017's highly anticipated movie lineup, with big release after big release. I'm sure I'll get to the theater at least once! What looks good to you? Are any of your most anticipated 2017 movies releasing this month?
Logan
Mar 3rd, R
Hugh Jackman's Wolverine has always been my favorite thing about the X-Men franchise, but his solo movies have never been quite what they should be. Maybe with Logan, his run will end with changing that! This one's already got excellent reviews from critics, and they finally buckled down and gave him an R-rated movie -- something I am all for on the counts of violence and language if the story calls for it. Annoyingly, there is also brief nudity, and while it's a good sign that the movie isn't filled with nudity and sex, that brief inclusion will almost certainly cause my family to wait for the DVD.
Before I Fall
Mar 3rd, PG-13
Am I a sucker for "Groundhog Day" movies? Yes, yes I am. This one mixes the fun gimmick with high school drama for a popular girl who lives the same day over and over -- ending each day dying in a car crash -- and begins to wonder if her life really is as great as she thinks. It's unlikely that this movie will reach the great levels of Groundhog Day, or even Edge of Tomorrow, but that doesn't at all mean that it's not going to be a worthwhile movie in its own right. I hope it will be, and I'm curious to see for myself.
Table 19
Mar 3rd, PG-13
Cute and possibly cynical dramedy with possible romance starring Anna Kendrick, anyone? Yeah, this is one of those chick-flicks that just seems like a no-brianer, with the charm and quirky appeal the trailer exhibits.
Kong: Skull Island
Mar 10th, PG-13
Look -- I'm under no delusion about this movie that it'll be anything but ridiculous. The first trailers tried to evoke some kind of seriousness and depth, but this one seems most honest. Ridiculous. Stylish, action-packed, star-studded ridiculousness, and as long as it's fun -- which seems a promising possibility -- I'm on board for the adventure! Seriously, this is the style of movie that Kong was meant for.
Beauty and the Beast
Mar 17th, PG
Full disclosure: I still think the animation of the Beast's face looks bad. Like, I'm worried about how much of a distraction it'll be bad. Otherwise, I'm excited this live action version of the story. Emma Watson looks good; Dan Stevens will hopefully be worth casting for the little time his face will be on screen; and I can already sense that Luke Evan's Gaston will the scene-stealing favorite. There's a part of me that doubts the film will be able to match the latest Cinderella's grand perfection, but as long as it can recapture even a spark of the magic of the original -- which I think it has based on the trailer -- everything should be great.
The Belko Experiment
Mar 17th, R
Normally this is the kind of movie where I'd look at the trailer, scoff pleasantly, move along, and watch it on TV three years later. However, this one was co-written by James Gunn, and that brings a lot of interest. Especially after I heard that the film has a lot of comedy (which you can't tell from this trailer) plus a cast full of familiar faces including John Gallagher Jr. in the apparent lead, and Sean Gunn and Michael Rooker. So I still might not see it until it hits the TV, or who knows. But now it's on my list.
Power Rangers
Mar 24th, PG-13
Tee-hee. I feel a little bit silly for including this one, especially since I can't claim nostalgia, having never watched the TV show, but I dunno, it looks fun. Cheesy, cliched, and probably too young for me, but fun. There's just something classically appealing about actioners like this, that don't feel the need to take risks and break new ground but to just do what works. Or maybe what doesn't work because this has all the earmarks of a movie with a good first act, a crumbling second act, and a distracted, directionless third that ruins everything. If that's not the case, I'll probably watch it. But to be honest, I'll probably watch it anyway.
Life
Mar 24th, NR
What, Christmas already? I love space travel movies; space travel movies that are subtly science fiction, using science to speculate into the near future, and most importantly space scifi movies where everything steadily plummets into crazy, terrifying horror. Yep, it appears to be Christmas. This one stars Ryan Reynolds, the lovely Rebecca Ferguson, Jake Gyllenhaal, and Hirouki Sanada (of Sunshine, a favorite of the sub-genre). It's not rated yet so we'll see about that, but I have high hopes. Very, very, extraterrestrially high.
Ghost in the Shell
Mar 31st, NR
This one definitely rides on what the rating ends up being. If it's appropriate enough, I'll be very interested, mainly just for the world-building aspect, which looks crazy and extremely unique -- although I suppose it isn't so much for people who watched the anime. Scarlett Johansson stars. It looks very stylish and not a little creepy.
The Zookeeper's Wife
Mar 31st, PG-13
A war drama rounds out the genres of the month. This one stars Jessica Chastain and tells the true story of the proprietor of a Polish zoo and his wife in 1939 who harbor Jews in the zoo and their home as Poland is invaded by Nazis. Daniel Bruhl also stars as the main villain. Jessica Chastain is the main appeal with this for me, but the unique and true aspects of it also seem to indicate an interesting historic film. Keeping an eye on this one.
Iron Fist
Premieres Mar 17th on Netflix
As great as this month looks movie-wise, there is nothing I am more excited for than Iron Fist. I have not been this excited for a Netflix Marvel show since the first season of Daredevil. I have high hopes, but not quite as much confidence. I know the potential is there, but if they are just getting this out there so the Defenders can happen things might not be as great as they should be. I will be very upset if that happens, because with what I can see of the characters and the premise, this show could be a new favorite of mine easily. I've got a lot riding on this -- don't let me down, Marvel!
Sunday, May 1, 2016
Upcoming Movie Roundup - May
So I got a big surprise in April when I went to see Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice because I was curious and my brother wanted to see it, and it turned out to be not the most terrible movie ever. I didn't actually hate it but managed to mostly enjoy it and that quite impressed me. But predictably no April movies were able to tempt me to see them. I did think about how much I wanted to see 10 Cloverfield Lane again quite a lot. And I looked for Midnight Special, but it isn't playing in my theater. So now we have come upon it; it's May, and it's time for War. Civil War.
What releases are you looking forward to this month? And are you Team Cap or Team Iron Man?
Captain America: Civil War
May 6th; PG-13
Obviously Captain America is the most hype movie this month... and possibly even this year, but we'll see. I'm not super anxious and excited to see it at this moment because based on what I've heard over the past few months, it's going to be an intense and hard-hitting movie. I feel like it's going to take a lot, and hoping that it gives enough to balance it out. Also, having seen Batman v Superman and Daredevil season 2, I've already had enough of the heroes fighting. So I'm hoping this movie can handle it better, but I'm also pretty confident that it will. Cap is basically the best ever, so I'm excited to see him lead another movie, and hoping the supporting cast won't crowd him too much, but at the same time the supporting cast and all the new characters we'll get to see is a huge part of the appeal. (I have one hyphenated word for you: Spider-Man.) Opening night tickets are already in my possession. All that's left now is to find time for a Winter Soldier re-watch. Go Team Cap!
High-Rise
May 13th (limited); R
This one's rating means that I won't watch it until I can watch it cut, but everything else about it makes me excited for when ever that day will be. This looks like my kind of movie. It's a sci-fi, and looks like an original, cerebral, and dark one too. And that would be good enough for me, but it also has a cast I'm quite partial to, with Tom Hiddleston and Luke Evans, plus Jeremy Irons and Sienna Miller. It currently holds a medium high score on RT... and has my attention fully.
Last Days in the Desert
May 13th (limited); PG-13
I don't really have much to say about this one but I thought it was worth mentioning. I like Ewan McGregor a lot, and Tye Sheridan also has a role, and it's got some good reviews, but it also looks like the kind of movie that could go very weird and theologically wonky. So I'm more curious to see what other people think than I am so see it for myself.
Love & Friendship
May 13th (limited); PG
The new Jane Austen adaptation! A guaranteed success, right? Well, there is a tiny catch: the book, Lady Susan, isn't an average Austen novel. It was one of Austen's earliest works, short, and written in the form of letters. This probably poses a few adaptation challenges to get around, but at least since it's so short they probably won't have to cut much out! I've never read it, but from the trailer it looks like a bright, witty satirical and fun period drama, and it's current %100 on RT backs that up. So -- perhaps it is a guaranteed success!
The Curse of Sleeping Beauty
May 13th (limited); NR
This one caught my attention because I was just thinking the other day how neat it would be if someone did a Sleeping Beauty story with a twist, and that twist should be that she sleeps right into the modern day and is woken up there. This movie has that general idea, but also takes it to plenty more, stranger places... it looks like a bit of a horror flick. It doesn't really look like a very good movie either, like it may not be executed very well. But I thought it's existence was a fun coincidence, and I'd like to keep an eye on how it does.
X-Men: Apocalypse
May 27th; NR
I got tired of X-Men after the last film, but this one has still kindled a surprisingly strong interest in me. Maybe because of how many new characters are coming and looking very promising -- or rather, old characters coming back as kids and therefore being re-cast and revitalized. Maybe because of Oscar Isaac being Apocalypse. Or maybe because the title actually justifies the stakes and scope the movie has to have as an X-Men movie. All X-Men movies seem to deal with the end of the world, but this one deserves to. So maybe that why. Ha, who am I kidding -- it's definitely Oscar Isaac. And the other things as a secondary. I definitely want to see this one, but I don't know when I'll be able to -- it's coming out at an inconvenient time. So I'll see it when I can and until then try not to get my hopes up that it'll be any better than the last one. Equal will do.
What releases are you looking forward to this month? And are you Team Cap or Team Iron Man?
Captain America: Civil War
May 6th; PG-13
Obviously Captain America is the most hype movie this month... and possibly even this year, but we'll see. I'm not super anxious and excited to see it at this moment because based on what I've heard over the past few months, it's going to be an intense and hard-hitting movie. I feel like it's going to take a lot, and hoping that it gives enough to balance it out. Also, having seen Batman v Superman and Daredevil season 2, I've already had enough of the heroes fighting. So I'm hoping this movie can handle it better, but I'm also pretty confident that it will. Cap is basically the best ever, so I'm excited to see him lead another movie, and hoping the supporting cast won't crowd him too much, but at the same time the supporting cast and all the new characters we'll get to see is a huge part of the appeal. (I have one hyphenated word for you: Spider-Man.) Opening night tickets are already in my possession. All that's left now is to find time for a Winter Soldier re-watch. Go Team Cap!
High-Rise
May 13th (limited); R
This one's rating means that I won't watch it until I can watch it cut, but everything else about it makes me excited for when ever that day will be. This looks like my kind of movie. It's a sci-fi, and looks like an original, cerebral, and dark one too. And that would be good enough for me, but it also has a cast I'm quite partial to, with Tom Hiddleston and Luke Evans, plus Jeremy Irons and Sienna Miller. It currently holds a medium high score on RT... and has my attention fully.
Last Days in the Desert
May 13th (limited); PG-13
I don't really have much to say about this one but I thought it was worth mentioning. I like Ewan McGregor a lot, and Tye Sheridan also has a role, and it's got some good reviews, but it also looks like the kind of movie that could go very weird and theologically wonky. So I'm more curious to see what other people think than I am so see it for myself.
Love & Friendship
May 13th (limited); PG
The new Jane Austen adaptation! A guaranteed success, right? Well, there is a tiny catch: the book, Lady Susan, isn't an average Austen novel. It was one of Austen's earliest works, short, and written in the form of letters. This probably poses a few adaptation challenges to get around, but at least since it's so short they probably won't have to cut much out! I've never read it, but from the trailer it looks like a bright, witty satirical and fun period drama, and it's current %100 on RT backs that up. So -- perhaps it is a guaranteed success!
The Curse of Sleeping Beauty
May 13th (limited); NR
This one caught my attention because I was just thinking the other day how neat it would be if someone did a Sleeping Beauty story with a twist, and that twist should be that she sleeps right into the modern day and is woken up there. This movie has that general idea, but also takes it to plenty more, stranger places... it looks like a bit of a horror flick. It doesn't really look like a very good movie either, like it may not be executed very well. But I thought it's existence was a fun coincidence, and I'd like to keep an eye on how it does.
X-Men: Apocalypse
May 27th; NR
I got tired of X-Men after the last film, but this one has still kindled a surprisingly strong interest in me. Maybe because of how many new characters are coming and looking very promising -- or rather, old characters coming back as kids and therefore being re-cast and revitalized. Maybe because of Oscar Isaac being Apocalypse. Or maybe because the title actually justifies the stakes and scope the movie has to have as an X-Men movie. All X-Men movies seem to deal with the end of the world, but this one deserves to. So maybe that why. Ha, who am I kidding -- it's definitely Oscar Isaac. And the other things as a secondary. I definitely want to see this one, but I don't know when I'll be able to -- it's coming out at an inconvenient time. So I'll see it when I can and until then try not to get my hopes up that it'll be any better than the last one. Equal will do.
Tuesday, March 1, 2016
Upcoming Movie Roundup - March
February was another slow movie month for me. I still want to see P&P&Z, and Hail, Caesar! -- plus Eddie the Eagle which I missed when doing my last Upcoming Movie post, but have taken notice of since -- but I haven't gotten to the theater for any of them, and will probably just end up waiting. But maybe not, because March doesn't have any must-see-in-theater flicks either (as far as I can tell), though it does have quite a few that land in the same "really want to see at some point" category that the previously mentioned three are waiting in.
Which March movies look interesting to you?
London Has Fallen
Mar 4th; R
Aaron Eckhart and Gerard Butler return as the President of the United Stated and his loyal bodyguard who saved his life in the last film and is gonna do it again. But it London. With higher stakes, I assume. I caught Olympus Has Fallen on TV a while back, and enjoyed it pretty well. Though I thought it was pretty bad, it had a violent, serious appeal, and it was certainly better than White House Down with much more likable leads and its more hardcore vibe. So I wouldn't mind catching this one too someday.
Zootopia
Mar 4th; PG
It's not like I don't want to see this one, but right now I'm super tired of the trailers getting everywhere. Animated Disney movie trailers are seriously the worst things ever. They make this movie look so annoying and are probably giving away all the jokes too. However I have learned to not judge a Disney animation by its trailer, and all the extremely positive reviews coming in are much more convincing that this one may just be a gem. But the sloth jokes are driving me crazy.
The Divergent Series: Allegiant
Mar 18th; PG-13
Uuuuhhhhhh. Is it worth mentioning that Insurgent was so boring that I was basically done with this series as soon as I saw it? First of all, Allegiant was the worst book of the series, and I don't care to see it end on screen. There's no enjoyment for me there, unless some huge changes are made. Secondly, this isn't even the end, because (that's right!) the last book is split into two movies! Yaayyyy... Except no Part1/Part2, now there's an "Ascendant" to look forward to. I'm not saying I'll never see this one or the last one. There is after all, the matter of my curiosity and my favorite character Peter. But seeing it in the theater is a long shot. Almost as a long a shot as this movie breaking the pattern and being a truly good movie!
Midnight Special
Mar 18th; PG-13
I seem to find one every month. One movie that I know noting about but the cast makes me immediately want to see it. This time it's this sci-fi film that want to be like Close Encounters of the Third Kind, and the interesting cast is Adam Driver and (his great uncle in the Star Wars universe!) Joel Edgerton. And slightly less interestingly, Michael Shannon and Kirsten Dunst. Plus it has the writer and director of Mud, which I absolutely adored. I love me some sci-fi, so the plot does actually seem intriguing too, and reviews are pretty positive, so I just may be giving this one a watch sometime!
The Little Prince
Mar 18th(limited); PG
This one's been a long time coming, but is finally almost here. This trailer is pretty spectacular, and the cast is large and talented, and I expect it'll be a very well-received movie. It looks great, I'll be very surprised if it isn't, and I'm definitely planning to want to see it for myself.
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Mar 25th; PG-13
Do you have any idea of how hard it was for me to not type "Bateman vs. Superbman" just then? It was a struggle. At least I got it out of my system now. So Henry Cavill is back and Zack Snyder is back, and Ben Affleck's Batman is about to get its debut, and I can't decide what I think. Should I laugh? Cry? Shrug and roll my eyes? Forget about his whole thing and wait for a good hero vs. hero movie to come along -- AKA, Civil War? Funny enough, it actually looks like a decent Batman movie at the beginning of this trailer. Then Supes and Drama and Snyder's infamous action style shows up, and I'm back to rolling my eyes. Anyway, I guess I'm done now. Moving on...
I Saw the Light
Mar 25th(limited); R
Tom Hiddleston has faded a little away from the peak of his popularity, but he's still a talented actor and I imagine he does a fantastic job in this role. I don't think I'd mind watching him in anything even if he does trade in his British accent for a country one that sound like what I hear all the time, and he even sings in this movie to make up for it.... But besides that I have absolutely no interest in this movie whatsoever. It does not look good. And as much as I like Hiddleston, he's not going to be enough to get me to watch this. Ho-hum reviews coming in seem to share my opinion.
Which March movies look interesting to you?
London Has Fallen
Mar 4th; R
Aaron Eckhart and Gerard Butler return as the President of the United Stated and his loyal bodyguard who saved his life in the last film and is gonna do it again. But it London. With higher stakes, I assume. I caught Olympus Has Fallen on TV a while back, and enjoyed it pretty well. Though I thought it was pretty bad, it had a violent, serious appeal, and it was certainly better than White House Down with much more likable leads and its more hardcore vibe. So I wouldn't mind catching this one too someday.
Zootopia
Mar 4th; PG
It's not like I don't want to see this one, but right now I'm super tired of the trailers getting everywhere. Animated Disney movie trailers are seriously the worst things ever. They make this movie look so annoying and are probably giving away all the jokes too. However I have learned to not judge a Disney animation by its trailer, and all the extremely positive reviews coming in are much more convincing that this one may just be a gem. But the sloth jokes are driving me crazy.
The Divergent Series: Allegiant
Mar 18th; PG-13
Uuuuhhhhhh. Is it worth mentioning that Insurgent was so boring that I was basically done with this series as soon as I saw it? First of all, Allegiant was the worst book of the series, and I don't care to see it end on screen. There's no enjoyment for me there, unless some huge changes are made. Secondly, this isn't even the end, because (that's right!) the last book is split into two movies! Yaayyyy... Except no Part1/Part2, now there's an "Ascendant" to look forward to. I'm not saying I'll never see this one or the last one. There is after all, the matter of my curiosity and my favorite character Peter. But seeing it in the theater is a long shot. Almost as a long a shot as this movie breaking the pattern and being a truly good movie!
Midnight Special
Mar 18th; PG-13
I seem to find one every month. One movie that I know noting about but the cast makes me immediately want to see it. This time it's this sci-fi film that want to be like Close Encounters of the Third Kind, and the interesting cast is Adam Driver and (his great uncle in the Star Wars universe!) Joel Edgerton. And slightly less interestingly, Michael Shannon and Kirsten Dunst. Plus it has the writer and director of Mud, which I absolutely adored. I love me some sci-fi, so the plot does actually seem intriguing too, and reviews are pretty positive, so I just may be giving this one a watch sometime!
The Little Prince
Mar 18th(limited); PG
This one's been a long time coming, but is finally almost here. This trailer is pretty spectacular, and the cast is large and talented, and I expect it'll be a very well-received movie. It looks great, I'll be very surprised if it isn't, and I'm definitely planning to want to see it for myself.
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Mar 25th; PG-13
Do you have any idea of how hard it was for me to not type "Bateman vs. Superbman" just then? It was a struggle. At least I got it out of my system now. So Henry Cavill is back and Zack Snyder is back, and Ben Affleck's Batman is about to get its debut, and I can't decide what I think. Should I laugh? Cry? Shrug and roll my eyes? Forget about his whole thing and wait for a good hero vs. hero movie to come along -- AKA, Civil War? Funny enough, it actually looks like a decent Batman movie at the beginning of this trailer. Then Supes and Drama and Snyder's infamous action style shows up, and I'm back to rolling my eyes. Anyway, I guess I'm done now. Moving on...
I Saw the Light
Mar 25th(limited); R
Tom Hiddleston has faded a little away from the peak of his popularity, but he's still a talented actor and I imagine he does a fantastic job in this role. I don't think I'd mind watching him in anything even if he does trade in his British accent for a country one that sound like what I hear all the time, and he even sings in this movie to make up for it.... But besides that I have absolutely no interest in this movie whatsoever. It does not look good. And as much as I like Hiddleston, he's not going to be enough to get me to watch this. Ho-hum reviews coming in seem to share my opinion.
Thursday, October 1, 2015
Upcoming Movie Roundup - October
Last month went as expected, with a trip to the theater to see The Scorch Trials, which I thoroughly, thoroughly enjoyed, and Before We Go from the comfort of the TV room sofa. October has one huge must-see that I've been waiting for rather desperately for the past two weeks or so, and a couple promising others that may be a good DVD watch sometime. But first things, first...
The Martian
Oct 2nd: PG-13
So much yes. So much. I'm really surprised at myself for how incredibly excited I am for this movie. It's the first movie whose anticipation has actually made me forget about Star Wars 7. Even Rogue Nation only made me temporarily forget after I'd seen it. I wrote a whole post about my high anticipation and expectation levels that you can read here -- but here's the short version: Matt Damon is Mark Watney, an Ares astronaut, who, through an unfortunate series of events is stranded alone on Mars without his crew (Jessica Chastain, Michael Pena, Sebastian Stan, Kate Mara, and Aksel Hennie), without communication, and with food and supplies meant only to last 31 days; he must use his smarts (and real science) to survive. The cast also includes Chiwetel Ejiofor, Sean Bean, and Kristen Wiig. The book was brilliantly smart and thrilling, and the Ridley Scott film promises to be faithful adaptation, and a compelling science-fiction-meets-science-fact adventure. Can. Not. Wait.
Pan
Oct 9th: PG
It looks like a cute, fun, adventurous remake of Peter Pan, and the origin story gives good opportunity to get creative with the story as well. Early reviews coming in are not nearly as positive as I would like, and are turning me off from wanting to see it in theaters, but they're not quite bad enough to keep me from wanting to see it altogether. I just have to see Hugh Jackman being the film's villain Blackbeard, and Garrett Hedlund as the young, not-yet-Captain Hook -- minus the hook (we'll for how long!) I guess I just won't expect too much out of it.
Crimson Peak
Oct 16th: R
If I watched horror movies. I don't, (certainly not this kind) and don't think I could -- even for Tom Hiddleston and Jessica Chastain and Mia Wasikowska -- but this one looks like a real quality horror movie, which is the only kind that ever tempts me in the slightest. And it has such an elegant, beautiful style... but then is so disturbingly creepy. If I watched horror movies... Here's the trailer, but don't watch it -- cause it's scary. :P
Goosebumps
Oct 16th; PG
Okay, I never read any of these books as a kid (perhaps that had something to do with my aversion to horror movies now?) so I don't have any sentimental attachment to this movie, but for some reason I still have a nice, mild interest in this. Of course it looks totally silly and cheesy, but sometimes when it's done right those things can make a movie really fun to just enjoy and laugh at and not really think about. And you need a movie like that every once in a while. Jack Black and Dylan Minnette star.
Bridge of Spies
Oct 16th: PG-13
Steven Spielberg's Cold War drama starring Tom Hanks. So the chances of this being a well-made film are pretty much %100. And well-acted. And well-scored. And dramatic. So this one's really a no-brainer, but I don't currently have any real interest. I love Spielberg's movies, and period dramas are great, and Tom Hanks promises to be as great as ever, but I'm just not too excited about this being more of a political drama war-movie, instead of an more action-centered war-movie. The trailer does show some bits of action, but nothing really big. So I'll just have to wait and see if it really is a straight drama, and if it is, just wait until a war drama is what I want to see!
Suffragette
Oct 23rd(limited); PG-13
Okay, so this movie looks well-made and everything, plus it has a great cast including Carey Mulligan, Meryl Streep, and Helena Bonham Carter, but honestly, it looks like it's absolutely nothing more than propaganda for extreme modern feminism, and that just completely ruins it for me.
Burnt
Oct 23rd(limited); NR
A Bradley Cooper chef movie! This one has quite the supporting cast too -- Sienna Miller, Alicia Vikander, Lily James, Emma Thompson, Daniel Bruhl... It says it's a dramedy, but from the trailer it looks more like pure drama. Still, it's about cooking, and stars Bradly Cooper. It's one of those "wait and see" cases I suppose.
What are your movie plans for this fall month? Tell me in the comments!
The Martian
Oct 2nd: PG-13
So much yes. So much. I'm really surprised at myself for how incredibly excited I am for this movie. It's the first movie whose anticipation has actually made me forget about Star Wars 7. Even Rogue Nation only made me temporarily forget after I'd seen it. I wrote a whole post about my high anticipation and expectation levels that you can read here -- but here's the short version: Matt Damon is Mark Watney, an Ares astronaut, who, through an unfortunate series of events is stranded alone on Mars without his crew (Jessica Chastain, Michael Pena, Sebastian Stan, Kate Mara, and Aksel Hennie), without communication, and with food and supplies meant only to last 31 days; he must use his smarts (and real science) to survive. The cast also includes Chiwetel Ejiofor, Sean Bean, and Kristen Wiig. The book was brilliantly smart and thrilling, and the Ridley Scott film promises to be faithful adaptation, and a compelling science-fiction-meets-science-fact adventure. Can. Not. Wait.
Pan
Oct 9th: PG
It looks like a cute, fun, adventurous remake of Peter Pan, and the origin story gives good opportunity to get creative with the story as well. Early reviews coming in are not nearly as positive as I would like, and are turning me off from wanting to see it in theaters, but they're not quite bad enough to keep me from wanting to see it altogether. I just have to see Hugh Jackman being the film's villain Blackbeard, and Garrett Hedlund as the young, not-yet-Captain Hook -- minus the hook (we'll for how long!) I guess I just won't expect too much out of it.
Crimson Peak
Oct 16th: R
If I watched horror movies. I don't, (certainly not this kind) and don't think I could -- even for Tom Hiddleston and Jessica Chastain and Mia Wasikowska -- but this one looks like a real quality horror movie, which is the only kind that ever tempts me in the slightest. And it has such an elegant, beautiful style... but then is so disturbingly creepy. If I watched horror movies... Here's the trailer, but don't watch it -- cause it's scary. :P
Goosebumps
Oct 16th; PG
Okay, I never read any of these books as a kid (perhaps that had something to do with my aversion to horror movies now?) so I don't have any sentimental attachment to this movie, but for some reason I still have a nice, mild interest in this. Of course it looks totally silly and cheesy, but sometimes when it's done right those things can make a movie really fun to just enjoy and laugh at and not really think about. And you need a movie like that every once in a while. Jack Black and Dylan Minnette star.
Bridge of Spies
Oct 16th: PG-13
Steven Spielberg's Cold War drama starring Tom Hanks. So the chances of this being a well-made film are pretty much %100. And well-acted. And well-scored. And dramatic. So this one's really a no-brainer, but I don't currently have any real interest. I love Spielberg's movies, and period dramas are great, and Tom Hanks promises to be as great as ever, but I'm just not too excited about this being more of a political drama war-movie, instead of an more action-centered war-movie. The trailer does show some bits of action, but nothing really big. So I'll just have to wait and see if it really is a straight drama, and if it is, just wait until a war drama is what I want to see!
Suffragette
Oct 23rd(limited); PG-13
Okay, so this movie looks well-made and everything, plus it has a great cast including Carey Mulligan, Meryl Streep, and Helena Bonham Carter, but honestly, it looks like it's absolutely nothing more than propaganda for extreme modern feminism, and that just completely ruins it for me.
Burnt
Oct 23rd(limited); NR
A Bradley Cooper chef movie! This one has quite the supporting cast too -- Sienna Miller, Alicia Vikander, Lily James, Emma Thompson, Daniel Bruhl... It says it's a dramedy, but from the trailer it looks more like pure drama. Still, it's about cooking, and stars Bradly Cooper. It's one of those "wait and see" cases I suppose.
What are your movie plans for this fall month? Tell me in the comments!
Sunday, May 24, 2015
The Life and Adventures of Nicholas Nickleby
I seem to have started a little tradition for myself of reading a Dickens novel over the Christmas season every year. First it was Little Dorrit, after having watched the fantastic, wonderfully long miniseries adaptation by BBC; this past year, it was Nicholas Nickleby, and this time, I did the reading before the watching, falling in love with the book, and then this adaptation.
When his father makes a mistake that results in the loss of his fortune, and then dies soon after, young and naive Nicholas Nickleby and his sweet sister Kate are thrust into the cold and cruel world where they must learn to work for a living. Their good and honest personalities clash with the rest of society and causes much trouble for them, and we follow them through their ups and downs as they determinedly forge a path through the worst humanity has to offer in 1830's London.
This 2001 TV film clocks in at 3 hours, and by my reckoning could have easily been twice as long, because as good as this lesser-known adaptation of one of Dickens's lesser-known novels is, it only seems like a highlight reel of the 770-page book. They did the best they could with the time they had though; the content was packed in at an almost dizzying pace, but it was there intact. Most of what was left out wasn't necessary to include -- Dickens seemed more invested in page numbers than concise, rabbit-trail-less storytelling. Some of my personal favorite parts were left out, but the important plot lines were all present, and a good amount of the not-so-important, but entertaining smaller bits besides.
James D'Arcy, I knew from very early in reading the book, was ideally cast as the young hero Nicholas, and I was not wrong. Nicholas is a potentially tedious character to portray; pride and naivety are easily bothersome flaws for a hero to have, and his positive qualities -- mainly his passionate good heart -- are difficult to bring out on screen without helpfully explaining text, but besides looking the part exactly, D'Arcy does the character justice admirably. My only complaint would be that he comes across a little too reserved or stuck-up at times, and that I tribute to the lack of honest, expressive speeches he gets to make, and that the lighter side of the whole story is left out. He never lacks for charm, sincerity or cheerful optimism though, and one thing done exactly right is his righteous anger; seething underneath his outward calm.
The only character I liked, but didn't wish more screen time or development for was Smike, Nicholas's friend and faithful companion. He's played by Lee Ingleby, and is translated to the screen and portrayed flawlessly. Okay, I did wish one thing more for him, but it was at the end where everything was going at break-neck speed, so I understand. Ingleby was sweet and sad and wonderfully pitiable and everything he should have been.
The gorgeous Sophia Myles is Nicholas's sister Kate, and she winds up in the same place as most other characters; she is obviously well-cast, but doesn't get quite enough time to give the character a full, totally satisfying arc. She does do Kate's kindness, gentleness and sweetness every bit of credit it deserves though, in a true, sincere way. Their mother may fall into the same category of lacking time also, but of that I'm actually glad, since here, she doesn't go on endless flighty ramblings, but you know that she could at any moment, and the threat of it is enough.
There's no shortage of villains to antagonize our hero and his family, but the best (and therefore the worst) of them is also his family -- the uncle, Ralph Nickleby. Ralph is a remarkable, amazingly complex antagonist I thought, and Charles Dance embodies him and his coldness with chilling believability, and underlying human realism. It is much more difficult to understand his inner-workings without Dickens's helpful guidance, but already knowing it, I found I could see it come out in the subtleties of the performance.
Other villains' existence was more focused on causing trouble for Nicholas than their thoughts and motivations behind it, so they were all done well; doing their duty and then fading out. Most notably is the Squeers family, who were all -- father mother daughter and son -- detestable through and through. And so disgusting that I wished they wouldn't be shown eating so very much. I have to admit I enjoyed Fanny's attempts at attracting Nicholas though, and it was one of few things that didn't feel hurried. Also worth a mention are Sir Mulberry Hawk (Dominic West) who was perfectly terrible, and his brace of followers, which includes the most familiar face this film can boast; before his rise to fame and mischief-making, Tom Hiddleston! He had a grand total of four words to say, but the camera did like him plenty.
The Cheeryble Brothers were the exact opposite of the villains; their sole existence was to make the Nickleby's lives better without examination of "why's," but I must say I wished to see more of their antics, and I definitely missed the inclusion of the honorary third brother Tim Linkinwater, who was undoubtedly excluded from this version for not having anything really important to do.
Then -- ah! -- there are the romantic interests! The definition-of-charming period drama veteran JJ Feild is Kate's, and of course he does a wonderful job being sweet and romantic like always. It goes without saying that they didn't get nearly as much time to develop their relationship as I would have liked. Neither did Nicholas and his girl, played by Katherine Holme. She looked the part perfectly, but had a nasally voice, and was barely given a half a chance to develop a character. A scene was added to give them some extra time on screen together, and a cute as it was, it felt out of place by not contributing at all to the plot.
At the surface, this story doesn't have much a plot to speak of; it literally just follows the life and episodic adventures of its dashing young hero. Yet I would have sat through ten hours of this movie if it meant only a handful more of those insignificant adventures were included. Nevertheless, this film makes a valiant effort. It sets a good, dark tone, and keeps the focus and heart in the right place; it cast the characters flawlessly -- to actors who, in their turn gave wonderful performances -- and, with an understanding of what was most important to include, the story was trimmed down to three hours in the best way I could imagine possible.
The short run-time is the biggest flaw, and a significant one, causing repercussions throughout the plot and characters and restricting them from their fullest potential. But when their fullest potential is the great amount of time, attention and understanding Dickens devoted to them, the lesser level they reached in a three-hour low-budget film adaptation is not only acceptable, but quite impressive in itself. It doesn't lack in compelling characters, humorous moments, heartfelt moments or classic old-fashioned entertainment, and stays true to the feel and themes Dickens gave it. If it weren't for the attention and love put into this adaptation, I would have wished I hadn't wasted three hours on it, but instead, my one wish is that it could have been even longer; if only so I could spend a few more precious moments in the world of Nicholas Nickleby.
 |
| The Nickleby's. |
When his father makes a mistake that results in the loss of his fortune, and then dies soon after, young and naive Nicholas Nickleby and his sweet sister Kate are thrust into the cold and cruel world where they must learn to work for a living. Their good and honest personalities clash with the rest of society and causes much trouble for them, and we follow them through their ups and downs as they determinedly forge a path through the worst humanity has to offer in 1830's London.
This 2001 TV film clocks in at 3 hours, and by my reckoning could have easily been twice as long, because as good as this lesser-known adaptation of one of Dickens's lesser-known novels is, it only seems like a highlight reel of the 770-page book. They did the best they could with the time they had though; the content was packed in at an almost dizzying pace, but it was there intact. Most of what was left out wasn't necessary to include -- Dickens seemed more invested in page numbers than concise, rabbit-trail-less storytelling. Some of my personal favorite parts were left out, but the important plot lines were all present, and a good amount of the not-so-important, but entertaining smaller bits besides.
 |
| Our dashing hero. |
The only character I liked, but didn't wish more screen time or development for was Smike, Nicholas's friend and faithful companion. He's played by Lee Ingleby, and is translated to the screen and portrayed flawlessly. Okay, I did wish one thing more for him, but it was at the end where everything was going at break-neck speed, so I understand. Ingleby was sweet and sad and wonderfully pitiable and everything he should have been.
 |
| Their friendship and dynamic together was great. |
 |
| Imagining them as their characters in the book was almost too easy. They were perfect for the roles. |
There's no shortage of villains to antagonize our hero and his family, but the best (and therefore the worst) of them is also his family -- the uncle, Ralph Nickleby. Ralph is a remarkable, amazingly complex antagonist I thought, and Charles Dance embodies him and his coldness with chilling believability, and underlying human realism. It is much more difficult to understand his inner-workings without Dickens's helpful guidance, but already knowing it, I found I could see it come out in the subtleties of the performance.
 |
| The story is about Ralph Nickleby almost as much it is about his nephew; he is no one-dimensional villain. |
Other villains' existence was more focused on causing trouble for Nicholas than their thoughts and motivations behind it, so they were all done well; doing their duty and then fading out. Most notably is the Squeers family, who were all -- father mother daughter and son -- detestable through and through. And so disgusting that I wished they wouldn't be shown eating so very much. I have to admit I enjoyed Fanny's attempts at attracting Nicholas though, and it was one of few things that didn't feel hurried. Also worth a mention are Sir Mulberry Hawk (Dominic West) who was perfectly terrible, and his brace of followers, which includes the most familiar face this film can boast; before his rise to fame and mischief-making, Tom Hiddleston! He had a grand total of four words to say, but the camera did like him plenty.
 |
| Sir Mulberry and his secondary crony, Old Fashioned Blonde Loki. |
The Cheeryble Brothers were the exact opposite of the villains; their sole existence was to make the Nickleby's lives better without examination of "why's," but I must say I wished to see more of their antics, and I definitely missed the inclusion of the honorary third brother Tim Linkinwater, who was undoubtedly excluded from this version for not having anything really important to do.
Then -- ah! -- there are the romantic interests! The definition-of-charming period drama veteran JJ Feild is Kate's, and of course he does a wonderful job being sweet and romantic like always. It goes without saying that they didn't get nearly as much time to develop their relationship as I would have liked. Neither did Nicholas and his girl, played by Katherine Holme. She looked the part perfectly, but had a nasally voice, and was barely given a half a chance to develop a character. A scene was added to give them some extra time on screen together, and a cute as it was, it felt out of place by not contributing at all to the plot.
 |
| Yay, Dickensian romance! |
At the surface, this story doesn't have much a plot to speak of; it literally just follows the life and episodic adventures of its dashing young hero. Yet I would have sat through ten hours of this movie if it meant only a handful more of those insignificant adventures were included. Nevertheless, this film makes a valiant effort. It sets a good, dark tone, and keeps the focus and heart in the right place; it cast the characters flawlessly -- to actors who, in their turn gave wonderful performances -- and, with an understanding of what was most important to include, the story was trimmed down to three hours in the best way I could imagine possible.
The short run-time is the biggest flaw, and a significant one, causing repercussions throughout the plot and characters and restricting them from their fullest potential. But when their fullest potential is the great amount of time, attention and understanding Dickens devoted to them, the lesser level they reached in a three-hour low-budget film adaptation is not only acceptable, but quite impressive in itself. It doesn't lack in compelling characters, humorous moments, heartfelt moments or classic old-fashioned entertainment, and stays true to the feel and themes Dickens gave it. If it weren't for the attention and love put into this adaptation, I would have wished I hadn't wasted three hours on it, but instead, my one wish is that it could have been even longer; if only so I could spend a few more precious moments in the world of Nicholas Nickleby.
Tuesday, April 1, 2014
Upcoming Movie Roundup - April
None of the March releases were impressive enough to get me in a theater, but that wasn't unexpected. It looks like April's interesting new releases have a theme of sorts; great casts, with at least one particularly cool addition (in my opinion anyway) per movie. (Or maybe that's the theme of all movies I find interesting... that's a thought.) However, there's still only one must-see, but it's looking to be a good one.
Draft Day
April 11th; PG-13
Probably the most anticipated film releasing this month and with good cause. By the trailer and TV spots I've seen this looks to be another great, epic and inspiring sports movie from Kevin Costner who's still going strong. Certainly will be more exciting and insightful into the behind the scenes of sports than Moneyball, if only because it's about the much more exciting and popular game of Football instead of Baseball. And what a cast--- okay that's it, I can't go on -- happy April fools day; now let's get on to the good and real stuff. Except I guess I have to include the trailer for appearance's sake:
Captain America: The Winter Soldier
April 4th; PG-13
Without a doubt this is the most widely anticipated film this month. And the closer it gets to its release date the more excited I grow in anticipation of seeing, it due to the flood of positive reviews, some going so far as to say Cap and Marvel had raised the superhero bar yet again. That's enough for me, but I also like the the idea that it's more of an espionage thriller with superheros, and the fact that Scarlett Johansson's Black Widow looks to be just as much of a main character as Chris Evans' Cap -- I'm excited to see the dynamic they create together. Anthony Mackie is the new addition to non-super-powered superheroes, and I'm very interested in what Frank Grillo's character will be up to.
Rio 2
April 11th; G
Okay, so I've seen... most of Rio. And I liked it, but obviously didn't love it enough to make the effort to see the entire thing. And this sequel will probably land at the same level of mild interest, as long as the reviews generally give the same amount of praise -- in spite of my discovery from watching this trailer that New Zealander comedian Jemaine Clement is the baddie for both films, plus of course Anne Hathaway and Jesse Eisenberg, makes a cool cast. And the sequel adds Kristin Chenoweth as the baddie's tiny tree frog sidekick. That one's a no-brainer.
Only Lovers Left Alive
April 11th (limited); R
On one hand, a cast that includes Tom Hiddleston and Anton Yechin -- and also Tilda Swinton, Mia Wasikowska and John Hurt, (yes, John Hurt plays a vampire, I swear this is not an April Fools joke) but mostly the former two -- sounds like a dream cast, and way too awesome to be actually true, but it is. But, on the other hand I honestly have no desire to see a movie about vampires... (no matter how removed from, or better than... other vampire movies... it is) it just doesn't appeal to me at all. Except... what a cast.
Transcendence
April 18th; PG-13
By the trailer it feels like a Chris Nolan film, and it's cast like one too, and that's probably because of the director, Wally Pfister, who has been Nolan's director of photography in his every film since Memento. However, this is Pfister's first film as director, so that raises a spark of suspicion, which will hopefully go unfounded. I don't see this being ground-breaking, or, say, transcending (get it?) any AI film we've seen before, but I do have high hopes of it being worthy exciting installment in the genre. There's Johny Depp and Rebecca Hall leading, Paul Bettany and Cillian Murphy for me, Kate Mara, for some reason I suppose, and Morgan Freeman to ensure the Nolan association. Here's to it all coming together.
What new films have tickled your fancy this fine Spring month? Anything besides Captain America? Something rather than Captain America?
Draft Day
April 11th; PG-13
Probably the most anticipated film releasing this month and with good cause. By the trailer and TV spots I've seen this looks to be another great, epic and inspiring sports movie from Kevin Costner who's still going strong. Certainly will be more exciting and insightful into the behind the scenes of sports than Moneyball, if only because it's about the much more exciting and popular game of Football instead of Baseball. And what a cast--- okay that's it, I can't go on -- happy April fools day; now let's get on to the good and real stuff. Except I guess I have to include the trailer for appearance's sake:
Captain America: The Winter Soldier
April 4th; PG-13
Without a doubt this is the most widely anticipated film this month. And the closer it gets to its release date the more excited I grow in anticipation of seeing, it due to the flood of positive reviews, some going so far as to say Cap and Marvel had raised the superhero bar yet again. That's enough for me, but I also like the the idea that it's more of an espionage thriller with superheros, and the fact that Scarlett Johansson's Black Widow looks to be just as much of a main character as Chris Evans' Cap -- I'm excited to see the dynamic they create together. Anthony Mackie is the new addition to non-super-powered superheroes, and I'm very interested in what Frank Grillo's character will be up to.
Rio 2
April 11th; G
Okay, so I've seen... most of Rio. And I liked it, but obviously didn't love it enough to make the effort to see the entire thing. And this sequel will probably land at the same level of mild interest, as long as the reviews generally give the same amount of praise -- in spite of my discovery from watching this trailer that New Zealander comedian Jemaine Clement is the baddie for both films, plus of course Anne Hathaway and Jesse Eisenberg, makes a cool cast. And the sequel adds Kristin Chenoweth as the baddie's tiny tree frog sidekick. That one's a no-brainer.
Only Lovers Left Alive
April 11th (limited); R
On one hand, a cast that includes Tom Hiddleston and Anton Yechin -- and also Tilda Swinton, Mia Wasikowska and John Hurt, (yes, John Hurt plays a vampire, I swear this is not an April Fools joke) but mostly the former two -- sounds like a dream cast, and way too awesome to be actually true, but it is. But, on the other hand I honestly have no desire to see a movie about vampires... (no matter how removed from, or better than... other vampire movies... it is) it just doesn't appeal to me at all. Except... what a cast.
Transcendence
April 18th; PG-13
By the trailer it feels like a Chris Nolan film, and it's cast like one too, and that's probably because of the director, Wally Pfister, who has been Nolan's director of photography in his every film since Memento. However, this is Pfister's first film as director, so that raises a spark of suspicion, which will hopefully go unfounded. I don't see this being ground-breaking, or, say, transcending (get it?) any AI film we've seen before, but I do have high hopes of it being worthy exciting installment in the genre. There's Johny Depp and Rebecca Hall leading, Paul Bettany and Cillian Murphy for me, Kate Mara, for some reason I suppose, and Morgan Freeman to ensure the Nolan association. Here's to it all coming together.
What new films have tickled your fancy this fine Spring month? Anything besides Captain America? Something rather than Captain America?
Saturday, March 1, 2014
Upcoming Movie Roundup - March
It's long overdue, but I finally saw Frozen in February! And then I went even further, and -- now brace yourselves -- saw a movie, in the theaters, in the same month it was released in! Gasp. Yes, I somehow managed to convince my cynical family of the worthiness of The Lego Movie and we all saw it together. So expect reviews for those two movies soon!
In March, there's quite the wide variety of new interesting movies -- something catered to everyone, so what was catered to you? And are you going to go see it? For me, so far, it looks like a bunch of very near-misses.
Mr. Peabody and Sherman
Mar 7th; PG
This is a case of really good marketing, because I had zero interest in a Mr. Peabody and Sherman movie, even though I remember them fondly from The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show. But, then I saw this trailer, and it was funny -- really funny. It looks very amusing and mildly intelligent (for a kid's movie) and included in the cast is Patrick Warburton, aka Puddy, aka Buzz Lightyear (of Star Command), aka Kronk, (yeah I think you get it now) aka the only person who can make you laugh just by speaking. His entire role was probably shown in the trailer, but still. And since it's already reviewing positively, I now have a positive inclination to see it... eventually.
The Grand Budapest Hotel
Mar 7th (limited); R
Ralph Fiennes. Saoirse Ronan. Adrien Brody. Willem Dafoe. Jude Law. Bill Murray. Edward Norton. Jeff Goldblum. Tilda Swinton. Lea Seydoux. Tom Wilkinson. Owen Wilson. And, of course, Wes Anderson. Yep. All in one movie. I think I've said enough. (And used enough periods.) The bubble-burster though, (for me anyway) is the R rating. Thanks a bunch Anderson.
One Chance
Mar 14th; PG-13
Craig Owens-- I mean, James Corden plays a real-life British fellow who wants to be an opera singer, but is stuck working in a shop until he gets a chance to audition for Britan's Got Talent. It looks like a light, sweet, feel-good movie, and undoubtedly Corden will be absolutely wonderful, but that may not be enough to pull this movie over the typical height of typical movies of this type.
Muppets Most Wanted
Mar 21st; PG
This is a guaranteed hit, no doubt about it. It's got the Muppets; it's coming off the success of the last Muppets movie; it's got Ricky Gervais and Tiny Fey supporting, plus a list of actors (and various other famous people) with cameos a mile long, at the top of which is Tom Hiddleston. TOM HIDDLESTON. The trailer is very funny and actually has a plot to its name, and there will be more original songs by the awesome Bret McKenzie. I didn't watch Sesame Street as a kid; I don't have any sentimental connection here, but with all these draws, even I want to see this. Doesn't mean I will, (at least for a while) but still.
Divergent
Mar 21st; PG-13
I'm sure I could go on and on about this film, the book it based on, why I think it might turn out to be stupid, and why I'm hoping it won't, but the bottom line is this: the quality of this film is the determining factor for if I decide to jump on the bandwagon and risk becoming a fan or not. If the general consensus is good enough (I'm not sure how good good enough is, unfortunately) it'll be the push I need to pick up a copy of the book, and if it's very good, maybe to even see the film before reading the novel. So I wait to see.
Noah
Mar 28th; PG-13
Ugh. One look at the trailer and all the discrepancies changes and embellishments made begin to flood in like waters from the deep. My only interest in this is my interest in knowing exactly how botched it turns out to be. It's disappointing, because a sincere, Biblically accurate telling of the flood is something I'd absolutely be beside myself to see, but this one appears to have been turned into just another epic disaster movie, with lots and lots of action, and drama, and more action. Cause that's what people like. At least they made the arc look accurate, and they got a pretty talented cast too. And a part of me is always a little impressed when people make movies based (however loosely) on the Bible.
In March, there's quite the wide variety of new interesting movies -- something catered to everyone, so what was catered to you? And are you going to go see it? For me, so far, it looks like a bunch of very near-misses.
Mr. Peabody and Sherman
Mar 7th; PG
This is a case of really good marketing, because I had zero interest in a Mr. Peabody and Sherman movie, even though I remember them fondly from The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show. But, then I saw this trailer, and it was funny -- really funny. It looks very amusing and mildly intelligent (for a kid's movie) and included in the cast is Patrick Warburton, aka Puddy, aka Buzz Lightyear (of Star Command), aka Kronk, (yeah I think you get it now) aka the only person who can make you laugh just by speaking. His entire role was probably shown in the trailer, but still. And since it's already reviewing positively, I now have a positive inclination to see it... eventually.
The Grand Budapest Hotel
Mar 7th (limited); R
Ralph Fiennes. Saoirse Ronan. Adrien Brody. Willem Dafoe. Jude Law. Bill Murray. Edward Norton. Jeff Goldblum. Tilda Swinton. Lea Seydoux. Tom Wilkinson. Owen Wilson. And, of course, Wes Anderson. Yep. All in one movie. I think I've said enough. (And used enough periods.) The bubble-burster though, (for me anyway) is the R rating. Thanks a bunch Anderson.
One Chance
Mar 14th; PG-13
Craig Owens-- I mean, James Corden plays a real-life British fellow who wants to be an opera singer, but is stuck working in a shop until he gets a chance to audition for Britan's Got Talent. It looks like a light, sweet, feel-good movie, and undoubtedly Corden will be absolutely wonderful, but that may not be enough to pull this movie over the typical height of typical movies of this type.
Muppets Most Wanted
Mar 21st; PG
This is a guaranteed hit, no doubt about it. It's got the Muppets; it's coming off the success of the last Muppets movie; it's got Ricky Gervais and Tiny Fey supporting, plus a list of actors (and various other famous people) with cameos a mile long, at the top of which is Tom Hiddleston. TOM HIDDLESTON. The trailer is very funny and actually has a plot to its name, and there will be more original songs by the awesome Bret McKenzie. I didn't watch Sesame Street as a kid; I don't have any sentimental connection here, but with all these draws, even I want to see this. Doesn't mean I will, (at least for a while) but still.
Divergent
Mar 21st; PG-13
I'm sure I could go on and on about this film, the book it based on, why I think it might turn out to be stupid, and why I'm hoping it won't, but the bottom line is this: the quality of this film is the determining factor for if I decide to jump on the bandwagon and risk becoming a fan or not. If the general consensus is good enough (I'm not sure how good good enough is, unfortunately) it'll be the push I need to pick up a copy of the book, and if it's very good, maybe to even see the film before reading the novel. So I wait to see.
Noah
Mar 28th; PG-13
Ugh. One look at the trailer and all the discrepancies changes and embellishments made begin to flood in like waters from the deep. My only interest in this is my interest in knowing exactly how botched it turns out to be. It's disappointing, because a sincere, Biblically accurate telling of the flood is something I'd absolutely be beside myself to see, but this one appears to have been turned into just another epic disaster movie, with lots and lots of action, and drama, and more action. Cause that's what people like. At least they made the arc look accurate, and they got a pretty talented cast too. And a part of me is always a little impressed when people make movies based (however loosely) on the Bible.
Wednesday, November 13, 2013
Thor: The Dark World
It's been two years since New York and the Chitari invasion, and Thor (Chris Hemsworth) is just finishing cleaning up Loki's mess. Now the nine realms are back in order. And soon, they'll literally be in order, as they're aligning -- a phenomenon that happens thousands of years apart. Last time, Thor's granddad was king, and he barely prevented the dark elves and their leader Malekith from covering the lands in darkness. Malekith escaped of course, and now is back, and bent on bringing the darkness with him.
Malekith is played by Christopher Eccleston, and half the time speaks a made-up "dark elf" language. I understand that the idea is to give them credibility, but while reading captions it is very hard to pay attention to anything else, so while I was halfheartedly trying to do both, I did neither. Malekith sadly ended up a rather generic bad guy. His sidekick, however, made up for it a little by being impressively creepy and intimidating.
There's also a secondary plot resolved at the end of the second act, and its climax was more climatic than the third act, which sets up a huge climax, but then falls short. (See spoiler #1 at the bottom of this post) The main plot has an intriguing premise and it slowly builds throughout the film until it reaches enormous proportions. It was so great that, apparently the writers had a hard time figuring out how to beat it, and their solution was underwhelming. (See spoiler #2)
I doubt it needs saying, but Loki is what I enjoyed most out of this film. All Loki needs to be his incredible self is the equally incredible Tom Hiddleston, who is as good as ever here, (as always) but it's interesting to see the slight changes that different directors have directed in the character. Branagh's influence on Loki made him pitiable; Whedon's made him an awesome villain, and this director, Alan Taylor made him unpredictable, and mysterious. And Taylor did nothing wrong -- Loki is still by far the best character in the film, and funnier than ever -- but he seems to just be humoring us Loki fans instead of actually being interested in developing the character for himself, and appreciating the importance of a character like that. (Spoiler #3) No matter how small a part he is, he's still a step above, so why not include him more throughout movie, and let the movie benefit from the boost? The majority of Loki is seen in the second act, and that was definitely the peak of the film.
All the concentration was centered on Thor and Jane, and I'll get to them in a minute, but what is it they have against Fandral, Sif, Hogun, and Volstagg? They had bigger roles in the first film, and I was hoping they'd get some more development and screen time for this one. Especially since Zachary Levi is now playing Fandral. But no, we're only teased with the characters' development, and they're only used until they're not necessary anymore. Levi does get more than the rest, but Jamie Alexander's Sif is only shown enough so we know she's jealous of Jane, and Hogun and Volstagg get next to nothing.
If attention had been more evenly spread it wouldn't have mattered at all that the hero, Thor's character arc was more like a flat line... or flat-line. Starting out as a great hero with no personal problems, he didn't have anywhere to go -- a common problem with sequels, and something of a catch 22, as it would be arguably worse to redo the character's original arc than for them to have none. The main drama with Thor this time around is between him and Jane. (Natalie Portman) She's hurt and confused that it's taken this long for him to return, but really there's not much drama to be had here. Everyone knows Thor is way too gentlemanly to ditch Jane, no matter how petty (and tiny) and clingy she is.
Besides being slightly more boring as a flawless hero, Thor's character was much improved since his first solo. He wasn't a blooming idiot anymore, and was wise to the ways of Earth as he should be. Still, he doesn't belong there, so there are some very subtle fish-out-of-water moments with one being exceptionally hilarious. (Spoiler #4) Still, the only time he really come to life is when he's bantering with his cheerfully evil brother.
The Dark World may be more confused, but is definitely prettier than its predecessor. The special effects got an upgrade, and were used to their best advantage. Asgard was breath-taking, and beautifully developed to a realistic, living city, slightly reminiscent of something out of The Lord of the Rings. On Earth, instead of being in the middle of nowhere, we get to see London and Greenwich, and two or three other realms in a little less detail. This huge increase in scope is probably the best improvement on the first Thor film. You can see where the budget went, and it is far from useless.
Action scenes also felt the good effects and are longer and cleaner and more epic in true Marvel style. They've found their formula, and will not be abandoning it anytime soon. On one hand this is good, because it guarantees a certain quality, and on the other, bad, because formula is the edge of a slippery slope that ends in a rut -- and Marvel may have slipped down it already.
But in the end, Thor is... solid -- and his movie is too. It was consistently funny with two particularly great jokes, (Spoiler #4 & 5) and it never turned too cheesy, or dull and generic that I couldn't enjoy it. It may not have met my grandest expectations, but it succeeded in its purpose of being a fun, visual and action-packed Marvel blockbuster, and a great backdrop for Loki to shine against. Not that last part? Watch the movie, and see for yourself.
WARNING: SPOILERS! If you haven't seen the movie, I have located the spoilers here, away from the rest of the review for your convenience to avoid. If you have seen the movie, read on, and I ironically apologize for the inconvenience.
Spoiler #1 - The secondary plot has to do with Jane being infected with a substance which Malekith needs to succeed in his plan. The whole second act revolves around Thor and Co. trying to get it out of her while still keeping it away from Malekith. This plot was way more interesting and involving than the main one, and it resolved awesomely with Loki playing for the bad side, but really for the good side, but really for his own side.
Spoiler #2 - In the end Jane tinkering with her data-collecting Earth technology is the key to ruining Malekith's plan thousands of years in the making, which really brings the epic climatic levels down a lot.
Spoiler #3 - He puts his death scene at the end of the second act, and even though he didn't really die, he doesn't appear again, and the third act suffers the loss. And while I'm on the subject -- the death scene wasn't traumatic enough, so as soon as they walked away from the body and cracked a joke, I knew he was fine.
Spoiler #4 - When he hangs Mjolnir on the coat rack -- brilliant.
Spoiler #5 - When Loki turns into Cap. I did not see that coming and it was great -- in fact that entire scene was hilarious.
Malekith is played by Christopher Eccleston, and half the time speaks a made-up "dark elf" language. I understand that the idea is to give them credibility, but while reading captions it is very hard to pay attention to anything else, so while I was halfheartedly trying to do both, I did neither. Malekith sadly ended up a rather generic bad guy. His sidekick, however, made up for it a little by being impressively creepy and intimidating.
 |
| This is neither Malekith nor his number one, just some typical creepy elves... |
There's also a secondary plot resolved at the end of the second act, and its climax was more climatic than the third act, which sets up a huge climax, but then falls short. (See spoiler #1 at the bottom of this post) The main plot has an intriguing premise and it slowly builds throughout the film until it reaches enormous proportions. It was so great that, apparently the writers had a hard time figuring out how to beat it, and their solution was underwhelming. (See spoiler #2)
I doubt it needs saying, but Loki is what I enjoyed most out of this film. All Loki needs to be his incredible self is the equally incredible Tom Hiddleston, who is as good as ever here, (as always) but it's interesting to see the slight changes that different directors have directed in the character. Branagh's influence on Loki made him pitiable; Whedon's made him an awesome villain, and this director, Alan Taylor made him unpredictable, and mysterious. And Taylor did nothing wrong -- Loki is still by far the best character in the film, and funnier than ever -- but he seems to just be humoring us Loki fans instead of actually being interested in developing the character for himself, and appreciating the importance of a character like that. (Spoiler #3) No matter how small a part he is, he's still a step above, so why not include him more throughout movie, and let the movie benefit from the boost? The majority of Loki is seen in the second act, and that was definitely the peak of the film.
 |
| Loki takes up light reading. |
All the concentration was centered on Thor and Jane, and I'll get to them in a minute, but what is it they have against Fandral, Sif, Hogun, and Volstagg? They had bigger roles in the first film, and I was hoping they'd get some more development and screen time for this one. Especially since Zachary Levi is now playing Fandral. But no, we're only teased with the characters' development, and they're only used until they're not necessary anymore. Levi does get more than the rest, but Jamie Alexander's Sif is only shown enough so we know she's jealous of Jane, and Hogun and Volstagg get next to nothing.
 |
| And that's not even mentioning these guys. The supporting roles from Earth. Though they do get more screen time than their Asgardian counterparts. |
If attention had been more evenly spread it wouldn't have mattered at all that the hero, Thor's character arc was more like a flat line... or flat-line. Starting out as a great hero with no personal problems, he didn't have anywhere to go -- a common problem with sequels, and something of a catch 22, as it would be arguably worse to redo the character's original arc than for them to have none. The main drama with Thor this time around is between him and Jane. (Natalie Portman) She's hurt and confused that it's taken this long for him to return, but really there's not much drama to be had here. Everyone knows Thor is way too gentlemanly to ditch Jane, no matter how petty (and tiny) and clingy she is.
 |
| Humans. |
Besides being slightly more boring as a flawless hero, Thor's character was much improved since his first solo. He wasn't a blooming idiot anymore, and was wise to the ways of Earth as he should be. Still, he doesn't belong there, so there are some very subtle fish-out-of-water moments with one being exceptionally hilarious. (Spoiler #4) Still, the only time he really come to life is when he's bantering with his cheerfully evil brother.
 |
| They really do act like brothers. You can almost hear Thor saying, "Loki! Stop it, you're annoying me!" |
The Dark World may be more confused, but is definitely prettier than its predecessor. The special effects got an upgrade, and were used to their best advantage. Asgard was breath-taking, and beautifully developed to a realistic, living city, slightly reminiscent of something out of The Lord of the Rings. On Earth, instead of being in the middle of nowhere, we get to see London and Greenwich, and two or three other realms in a little less detail. This huge increase in scope is probably the best improvement on the first Thor film. You can see where the budget went, and it is far from useless.
Action scenes also felt the good effects and are longer and cleaner and more epic in true Marvel style. They've found their formula, and will not be abandoning it anytime soon. On one hand this is good, because it guarantees a certain quality, and on the other, bad, because formula is the edge of a slippery slope that ends in a rut -- and Marvel may have slipped down it already.
But in the end, Thor is... solid -- and his movie is too. It was consistently funny with two particularly great jokes, (Spoiler #4 & 5) and it never turned too cheesy, or dull and generic that I couldn't enjoy it. It may not have met my grandest expectations, but it succeeded in its purpose of being a fun, visual and action-packed Marvel blockbuster, and a great backdrop for Loki to shine against. Not that last part? Watch the movie, and see for yourself.
 |
| The end. Thor is now protecting you from evil spoilers. |
WARNING: SPOILERS! If you haven't seen the movie, I have located the spoilers here, away from the rest of the review for your convenience to avoid. If you have seen the movie, read on, and I ironically apologize for the inconvenience.
Spoiler #1 - The secondary plot has to do with Jane being infected with a substance which Malekith needs to succeed in his plan. The whole second act revolves around Thor and Co. trying to get it out of her while still keeping it away from Malekith. This plot was way more interesting and involving than the main one, and it resolved awesomely with Loki playing for the bad side, but really for the good side, but really for his own side.
Spoiler #2 - In the end Jane tinkering with her data-collecting Earth technology is the key to ruining Malekith's plan thousands of years in the making, which really brings the epic climatic levels down a lot.
Spoiler #3 - He puts his death scene at the end of the second act, and even though he didn't really die, he doesn't appear again, and the third act suffers the loss. And while I'm on the subject -- the death scene wasn't traumatic enough, so as soon as they walked away from the body and cracked a joke, I knew he was fine.
Spoiler #4 - When he hangs Mjolnir on the coat rack -- brilliant.
Spoiler #5 - When Loki turns into Cap. I did not see that coming and it was great -- in fact that entire scene was hilarious.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)