Fortunately, I can still say I don't hate any of the Mission: Impossible movies, and say that there's a certain amount of merit to all of them. Unfortunately, Dead Reckoning's merit isn't as prominent as the series has achieved; and more unfortunately, it doesn't have the fallback that Mission: Impossible 2 takes advantage of, where you can call the melodramatic silliness "fun" (if so inclined) and "different" (to point out that the movie certainly does try its own thing.)
It's nice when a movie can slip and still be enjoyable. But right now, a movie that doesn't slip at all is worth its weight in gold.
Dead Reckoning. Part one. One complement I can get out of the way is, even though it's a "Part One," it doesn't leave us hanging as far as feeling like we've seen a complete movie. We know there's more to see, but the movie does fulfill everything it sets out to accomplish. Director Christopher McQuarrie and Tom Cruise have now done three of these movies together, and it's unlikely they'd take an obvious misstep. No; instead, what they should have been worried about was that the groove they established in the series with Rogue Nation would too quickly become a rut. Fallout didn't pack the thematic/character punch that Rogue Nation did, but the stunts and visual entertainment was so stunning that I was willing to brush it off as a natural ebb and flow of quality. The next movie would right it.
But it didn't. And, I'm sorry to say, the action element has dropped off now, too. First, thematically, the movie is about the kind of honorable duty involved in taking a job in a secret agency that will disavow you the second you get into trouble—while sending you off to get in trouble as your job. Ethan and Co. meet up with and befriend Hayley Atwell as Grace, a highly skilled thief, and through friendship and loyalty, tempt her over to the good side. The idea is nice. "If you're going to risk your life for something, risk it for your friends and the good of the world." But while that's a simplistic enough idea, it still doesn't come through the plot so much as it is told to us (and Grace) outright through dialogue. And in so doing, it's implied that every MIF agent used to do high-skill illegal activities, got caught for it, and joined the MIF after a subsequent offer.
Little comedy is attempted in favor of drama—which fails to land, and yet is so benign that it neither moved nor irritated me.
This series has undone the choices of past movies before, but this, I'd call ret-conning. And unnecessary. It's a small thing, maybe, and ignorable. But I like the characters here, and find the implications annoyingly simplistic, verging on outright stupidity. Anyone who's seen M:I3 knows newbie Benji lacked the constitution for illegal activity! And from the start Ethan has always been the boy scout type. It's just doesn't ring true, and you don't need them all to be ex-criminals to make joining the IMF "the right choice." In fact, it lessens Grace's character, who was unique for being a lone wolf and amoral. If all of them made the switch, why should we wonder whether she will or not? So, if the plot had been constructed to better show Grace's conversion, they could've stayed away from that regrettable "backstory."
But the plot has its own issues to deal with in a less than ideal manner. It's crafted more to implement action set pieces and struggles to find a dynamic way toward the goal. It's a McGuffin plot, which, I admit, I don't mind at all. The action was my favorite parts, but there's no denying it's a step down from the feats this series has pulled off in the past. Tom Cruise does his thing and hurls himself off a cliff on a motorcycle, but what isn't in-camera looks faker than I've ever seen M:I look. The "ramp" he takes the motorcycle off for one; and the set piece of the falling train also has some digital elements that dampen the relentless thrill that scene is meant to impart. A few liberties with physics are taken (which must be bad if I notice it!) and a handful of other head-scratching choices.
It's like joining the M:I movies is the movie star version of going to summer camp or something. Try something new; get out of your comfort zone for a while. (I dunno, I never went to a summer camp.)
At home, when senseless things happen in silly movies and people ask why, I like to jokingly point out that the movie needed them to so the next thing could happen. Unfortunately, that thought occurred to me a few too many times here, too. It's just not inspired; the creative juices didn't flow, and so now the story doesn't either. As a whole, it's a mess, but in small bites of compartmentalized sequences, it can be fun. Ethan and Grace's car chase sticks out as a highlight because it does what I've come to like uniquely about McQuarrie's installments: playing action and character interaction off each other. Atwell pairs well with Cruise and seems game with the stunts. And while the car chase they tag team in gets a little Buster Keaton, that's part of the charm for me.
I could happily see a movie every three years that is exactly that—fun, sometimes silly action performed in-camera by characters who are saving the world because their friends live in it. But that's not to say there isn't better and worse ways to do it. Dead Reckoning isn't the worst ever, but there's nothing better about it, either.
July was downright boring. I saw Spider-Man: Far From Home. And that's it. And it was fine. And that's it. (Read my review here.) And I got really bored and frustrated of this year's movie selection and am on the verge of going to see Once Upon a Time in Hollywood even though I don't care for Tarantino movies typically.
But August. August looks good. August looks like it might begin turning 2019 around. It's going to need more than one solid hit with me in order to do that in the span of 31 days, and that it just... might... have. (Or maybe it's just wishful thinking and some super solid trailers.) Now let's see if I'll even go see more than one in the span of 31 days!
What looks good to you this month? Did I leave anything out?
Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw
In theaters August 2nd; PG-13
Is that really its title? Why can't it just be Hobbs & Shaw?? Someday I'll be in the mood for dumb, ridiculous, over-the-top buddy-cop action. And when that day comes I'm sure this will be just the ticket. But I've never been much for the F&F franchise and even within that neither Hobbs nor Shaw ever had much impact as characters. When I do see this, I will be most excited to see Vanessa Kirby. Then Idris Elba. And THEN The Rock and Jason Statham.
Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark
In theaters August 9th; PG-13
Goosebumps for kids grown up? It is based on a series of books after all, which inspires confidence that it could be more than a throwaway creepy summer flick, but it is also compiling all the stories into one film it seems? Which could cheapen it. This is one I probably won't be watching unless it gets great reviews.
The Peanut Butter Falcon
Limited release on August 9th; PG-13
Shia LaBeouf goes on a road-trip to help a runaway with Downs become a wrestler. With Dakota Johnson. Yep. This could easily turn into one of my favorite movies of the year if it plays its cards right -- like it seems to be. The feeling I get watching that trailer is the same the trailer for The Way Way Back gave me, and that's one of my all-time favorite films. It looks so pure and sweet and full of adventure and to be about uplifting things like love and friendship -- how could it not be appealing?
Blinded by the Light
In theaters August 14th; PG-13
Continuing the trend of apparently pure films with uplifting messages comes this movies about a Pakistani-British teen who falls in love with the music of Bruce Springsteen in 1987. I LOVE this trailer, and what the movies seems to be saying about the universality of music (and within that, art in general and the way it can connect beyond culture lines) -- especially great American rock from the 80s, haha! I hope it's sappy and wears its heart on its sleeve. The sappier the better.
Where'd You Go, Bernadette
In theaters August 16th; PG-13
Richard Linklater's latest is based on a novel, and stars Cate Blanchett. It has all the earmarks of something that should be good, but I'm stuck. I can't get over the hurdle of "Cate Blanchett Plays a Normal Person." Don't get me wrong she's one of my favorite actresses. It's just hard for me to buy her as an every-woman, even done up with plain clothes and hair -- she's still exceptional. It's weird. I'll still keep an eye on this for later.
Ready or Not
Limited release August 21st; R
A stylish-looking horror comedy in which Margot Robbie's doppelganger (Samara Weaving) is the new bride of a member of a uber-rich family who have a tradition in which they kill all new brides as some kind of bizarre ritual sacrifice. A killer game of hide and seek in a wedding dress! With in-laws from hell! Also with Adam Brody who is great. I get a feeling I'm going to like this one.
(This is a red-band trailer that contains violence and language.)
Brittany Runs a Marathon
Limited release August 23rd; R
This looks like a cute comedy/rom-com. It's nice to see a movie where the character's physical improvement isn't all about just being more attractive. Here it's about being healthy, and valuing yourself and you life. I'm not sure it can be a great film on that great idea alone, (it should still be funny and honest and put together in a quality, entertaining way) but it is off to a good start.
This is what happens when the people who work on a franchise respect the franchise. Each film stands alone, yet each new release still inspires fans to rewatch previous installments. The past is respected, but the agenda is always to move forward. And the films themselves... they never count on selling tickets by brand-name, but are hard and winning pieces of filmmaking; carefully crafted and assembled by talented people who push the envelope beyond the realm of the possible. In a world overflowing with franchises, Mission: Impossible stands alone.
How does it do it? Well, you could say it's in the job description.
I could spend all day talking about this franchise as a whole. How it's a trendsetter, how casting choices always give dramatic boosts to the actors' future careers as they cycle through, or how the films are contradictory; of an extremely high quality, but also mainstream action films made to entertain. Entertainment can get lost in the fray of making films into high art or a message to change the world, but entertainment has always been the goal of Tom Cruise, and he always seems to trust the continued creation of this, his baby, to artists who share his vision.
Christopher McQuarrie is the first M:I writer/director to stay on for two films, and as he's taken the series to a whole new level, the second one feels like an extra-deserved bonus round. From my perspective, Fallout is similar in construction pattern to Rogue Nation, but makes everything new again in the way a fresh director usually does. Under his direction, the creative action beats are even more relentless, thrilling, and involving. I'm not usually vocal during movies at the theater, but I was exclaiming things like, "Oh no!" or "Look out!" all over the place. Once I even pointed at the screen and told Ethan, "He's over there!"
It's either a death-wish or a contagious and daring desire to entertain.
McQuarrie crafted this movie intentionally that way, because what's the point of all those practical effects and stunts if it doesn't all engage with the viewers and keep them thrilled, amazed and eager for more? This isn't a character film, but the story is personal enough for the characters to let us care about the result, down to each small goal. This whole film feels like a series of impossible tasks that, when each is amazingly accomplished is a mere stepping stone to the next. Even the extended sequences are constructed that way, keeping boredom far, far away.
Tom Cruise is amazing. He does his own stunts, his own driving, motorcycle riding, helicopter-flying, and fist-fighting. He executes difficult skydiving maneuvers, and even breaks his foot and keeps going until the take is over. Still my favorite is always the running. There are few things that can be captured on film as thrilling as a tracking shot of Tom Cruise in a full sprint. At some point he even has some genuine acting to do, and at that point he's just showing off. And I hope Simon Pegg stays as long as Cruise does, because Benji is basically the heart and soul of these movies. He handles the comedy, and always gets something awesome to do too.
Tom always comes out at the center, but he's not afraid of sharing screen time or being overshadowed.
Rebecca Ferguson is back, still brimming with grace and power, and feels so settled into the team it would be sad if she left now. Ving Rhames is always a great addition, and this film uses him better than ever. Sean Harris was the one return I was hesitant about, but seeing how he was utilized, it all make sense now. Then we have newbie lady Vanessa Kirby. She's this movie's personification of one of the main reasons I adore this franchise as more than films, but as boosts for actors. She's a good actress in need of a step up and is given a spotlight to take advantage of. She does. She stuns with a joyfully sultry character.
And, Henry Cavill. He's more well-known already by mainstream audiences, because mainstream audiences always know who's playing Superman. But his M:I role still gives him the same kind of opportunity as it does Kirby -- even more so since his character is more prominent -- a chance to impress, and to show himself to be capable of more than he's known for. He knocks it out of the park, and I've never enjoyed him more. He was so perfectly irritating and pompous. I hope this can rocket him out to find new roles that are more fun and/or meaty than the dull, handsome hunk of meat.
I sense good things in this guy's future.
Some of the set pieces blew my mind, and I spent a lot of time full-on giggling at how awesome everything gets. With a very basic understanding of how the production works, the stunts and camerawork are awe-inspiring. Sometimes you might realize how hard that would've been to pull off, like the skydiving shot, and sometimes I was simply left agape, wondering how the heck they did that, like the first hurdle of the helicopter sequence. It feels real because, well, it kind of is. But the movie does have moments for you to catch your breath with small and intimate character scenes, too.
I barely noticed with how completely mind-boggled I was over the relentless action, but there were a few one-on-one talking scenes that were full of subtext and motivations and themes to explore -- just like any other movie that doesn't feel like non-stop running, fighting, and crazy death-defying stunts. And those scenes are every bit as alive and electric as the action, not functional plot-ties only, but engaging on a different level. There's not much emphasis on character, and the plot isn't overly-complex; but even in the backseat, the same wonderful, commendable devotion is applied all around.
What the heck.
There's no shortage of films that are carefully crafted to have artistic merit, and, there are no shortage of films that are meant to be entertaining. Mission: Impossible is the place where those two sides unexpectedly intersect. Fallout is an immaculate and artistic creation; three years in the making; worth nearly two-hundred million dollars; of massive scale and aggressive ambition; and it was built to do one thing, and one thing only -- knock your freaking socks off.
Okay! Last month I got out to see Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom as expected, and I will be seeing Incredibles 2 later today! Fallen Kingdom was pretty dumb. Dumber than I expected in fact -- but it had solid elements to it, and I expect I'll watch it again someday, if only for that one scene that unintentionally made me belly-laugh. Read my review here!
I got around to seeing Solo, despite warnings, and yeah, it's not good. But it's the kind of not good you can enjoy if you're not offended by how literally the story takes the existing Star Wars canon while simultaneously destroying it with some of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard of in my life. Review here!
Not a great year for the Howards.
And I caught up on some of the artsy film releases of earlier in the year -- Annihilation, (review) which I didn't care for, but it was fine; no shade if you loved it -- and Thoroughbreds (review) which I did love. I think about it a lot.
Summer's in full swing and there's not an overwhelming amount of new releases this month! If all goes according to plan I'll be seeing two of them in theaters. What are your movie plans for for July? Stay cool out there!
The First Purge
July 4th; R
Believe it or not, I've seen all the Purge movies so far. And I actually liked... one... of them. Or was it two? I dunno, but Frank Grillo's character is fun. I was super excited for the last one expecting it to be real dumb in a fun way because of the parallel's it seemed to draw with the 2016 election... but it wound up being all those things except the fun part. This one is even more political, and almost certainly even more toxic, so I'm probably done. Until it can be watched for free and then maybe. We'll see how high my curiosity gets, but without Frank... not promising.
Ant-Man and the Wasp
July 6th; PG-13
Man. I have never felt so ho-hum about a Marvel movie. I almost don't even want to see it -- but I already have tickets because I have a Marvel Fan for a brother. He, the Rotten Tomatoes score, and my pathetic hopes and dreams keep saying to me, "But what if it's actually good?" And to that I say: Then I'll have a real nice surprise I guess. I expect I'll enjoy it (as it's a comedy and therefore hopefully not a complete slog) more than Infinity War, but, man. The Marvel fatigue is for real right now. Still, I do my duty. They promised me Hawkeye and it had better be more than a cameo!
Skyscraper
July 13th; PG-13
What's this movie about? *watches trailer* Oh. Okay. Because of the poster I had the impression that The Rock spends most of the movie trying to get inside. But I see. As far as Rock action flicks go, this looks like it's on the higher scale of potential. Like a scifi-ish Die Hard knock-off. It would probably be more my thing if it wound up being laughably bad. But then again, Jumanji was a Rock action flick and it was awesome!
The Night Eats the World
July 13; TV-14
The water buckets collecting rain water on the roof of the building reminds me of 28 Days Later, which makes this movie seem like if 28 Days Later was just the part where they're hiding out in the apartment, which makes me think I'd enjoy watching this.
A Midsummer Night's Dream
July 13th; NR
I have a ubersoft soft spot for Shakespeare adaptations that keep the language but set the story in modern day. So count me in -- no other reason needed. I did notice that Fran Kranz is in the cast though. He was in Joss Whedon's Much Ado About Nothing and is generally pretty awesome.
The Equalizer 2
July 20th; NR
I don't exactly remember much of the first Equalizer movie, but I definitely remember liking the first Equalizer movie -- and that, plus this trailer, is good enough for me!
Mamma Mia: Here We Go Again!
July 20th; PG-13
Say the title with a sarcastic inflection. Yet, I'm kinda excited too. I hope it's as dumb and cheesy as it looks. They'd just better not rehash all the songs. I will be mad.
Mission: Impossible - Fallout
July 27th; (NR, but probably PG-13)
What is there even to say about this? It's Mission: Impossible, and has consistently been one of my top anticipated movies for the past three years! Tom Cruise is back to do dangerous things for our entertainment; my favorite Simon Pegg is back; the dark horse wonder woman from Rogue Nation Rebecca Ferguson is back; and the director who upped the anti in this impossibly crazy franchise, Christopher McQuarrie is back! No Jeremy Renner, but that's the nature of the franchise. New additions are Henry Cavill (with the infamous mustache) and Vanessa Kirby who I love. I'm ready. If this disappoints me I will never love again -- so don't let me down team! (With a trailer that looks like this I don't see how they could.)
Hot Summer Nights
July 27th; R
This movie looks so stylish I could watch it for that reason alone. All retro and neon. And I love the movie Charlie Bartlett so I guess I can't say anything about it being a teenage coming-of-age film where the main character deals drugs. I also saw Lady Bird a bit ago, so I can say I like Timothee Chalamet's acting abilities, and I definitely like Maika Monroe... so I guess I'm on board. Depends on how the plot goes as to if I'll like it or not.
This tag converts movie quotes into movie questions, and yes, did require some confessing on my part.
1."Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Big
Lebowski Your most unpopular film opinion:
That Captain America: Civil War was halfway a terrible movie. I've seen it three times now, and can enjoy it well enough to continue watching it whenever the situation calls for a huge superhero blockbuster, but that's only in spite of the issues I have with it. Seeing it in the theaters it felt like being pelted with backhanded insults for two and a half hours, (read: IT WAS NOT FUN) and as the credits rolled I sat with my head in my hands confused as to whether I wanted to start yelling expletives at the screen or just cry. Yet I wasn't at all surprised when everyone else in the group I saw the movie with (save for my youngest brother who's even more of a film cynic than me, and generally doesn't like MCU movies) absolutely loved it.
STOP! FIGHTING!!!
The problems I had with it were enhanced by the other half of the movie being exceptionally well-done what with all those spectacular fight scenes and a bunch of lovable characters, and basically boils down to this: The plot was painfully contrived, and it forces characters to do things out of their established character; and to cover it up, the film attempts to emotionally manipulate the audience. Feeling like my emotions are being purposefully manipulated while watching a film is probably my biggest movie pet peeve, which is probably why I dislike this movie so much more than most. Check out my review of Civil War here for a more in-depth explanation of my opinions!
2."The limit does not exist!" - Mean Girls A Guilty Pleasure film you can watch over and over again:
I thought about this, expecting it'd end up being some girly flick similar to Mean Girls, like maybe Clueless, which I love; but I realized that all the girly rom-coms I love I don't feel guilty over. The movie I rewatch the most and feel movie-guilt for enjoying is actually Peter Jackson's King Kong. You may say it's a great film and I shouldn't feel guilty over it (or the opposite!) but that's not the point. The 2005 King Kong is my biggest guilty pleasure film -- possibly just because the rest of my family hates it, but there you go. In many ways I think the movie is genuinely an excellent film. The technology used for Kong, the cast, the scenes before the island... it's main problem is the dinosaur chase sequence which did not hold up animation-wise, and it does have that sappy, overly-dramatic tone going on at the end too. That's what King Kong is though, and I really enjoy it. I don't even mind the runtime!
3."Are you not entertained?!" - Gladiator A film that is universally loved that you found boring: Dawn of the Planet of the Apes. I'm not sure if this movie counts fully as universally loved, but when I first saw it and found it boring it certainly did seem that way. My brothers and I were all quite bored watching this, and even had a hard time making fun of it's overly serious and depressing tone. Since then I re-watched it alone and was able to appreciate the motion-capture performances of the apes -- mainly Koba, Toby Kebbell, who I was just starting to pay attention to at the time. Recognizing the actors behind the apes was interesting in it's own way, but I still maintain that the movie and its plot is overall very boring, building glacially up to a war that we'd have to wait 3 years to see. (Read my review for more ranting on the subject!)
And even then Koba's dead so who cares?
4. "Sorry! My Prada's at the cleaners! Along with my hoodie and my
'f*** you' flip-flops, you pretentious douchebag!" - The Social Network The most pretentious film you've ever seen:
Oh that's easy: Gravity. As a lover of scifi, I am, of course, perfectly capable of suspending disbelief for the sake of enjoying movies that don't completely respect the laws of this world. Like physics. How. Ever: Gravity gets no such pass, because it was marketed and presented and acclaimed as the most realistic space-set scifi film ever made. And yes, it looks pretty darned realistic -- until their blatantly ignoring the laws of physics and general reality gets in the way! All done, I might add, to propel a plot that otherwise couldn't have made it an inch off the ground. It's pretty, yes, but if you're gonna be that smug over the greatness of your film, maybe make it actually as great as you claim.
For your viewing pleasure: CinemaSins! My biggest issue with this one is mentioned at 2:48, but honestly I agree with them all.
My second biggest issue isn't mentioned in the CinemaSins though. It's actually the scene where Stone is in the ship crying, and the tears drip off her face and float slowly towards the camera. Back to emotional manipulation again, because in reality tears in zero-g will just accumulate on your eye in a bubble, as demonstrated in this neat video:
This fact that the movie did what it did instead of adhering to the laws of reality is evidence that its true motivation was not to be realistic, but simply to market a trite and contrived story under the guise of being groundbreaking in film realism. Read my review of Gravity here for more unrelenting bashing.
5."Draw me like one of your French girls." - Titanic A film that describes your aesthetic:
Disclaimer: I have no idea what "aesthetic" is. I know the proper definition, and I've certainly seen it used as a kind of exaggerated meme, but I don't know what "my aesthetic" is, or how a movie could describe it. So I'm just going with a movie that has a tone and visual makeup that appeals to me. (Which is probably exactly what I was supposed to do!) And that movie is Mud. I won't even attempt to describe the aesthetic except to say the director Jeff Nichols said that he wanted the film to flow like the Mississippi River (an important backdrop in the film) -- and it did. You can read my review of the film here (which I wrote before I fully understood the complete reasons why I loved it) and I'll leave you with a compilation of its cinematography:
6."That's a bingo!" - Inglourious Basterds A director who has never let you down:
Jeff Nichols. It's a high standard to live up to, and the more film's you've made the more likely it is that you disappointed in some way. I immediately thought of him, but then thought there had to be some other director who's done more than five movies who never let me down, but no. I still haven't seen his fifth film, Loving, but even with four he still wins. Shotgun Stories,Take Shelter,Mud, andMidnight Special are not only films that have merely not let me down, they in fact all blew me away in one way or another, and are all among my favorite films. Click the links to read my reviews of each of them!
The posters look so good together too.
7."Don't believe his lies." - Memento A film you were told was bad but you loved:
This one I'm giving a tie because both the movies have the same set of circumstances. The Brothers Bloom, and The Darjeeling Limited; both considered by the general movie-going audience to be the worst movies of their respective directors, Rian Johnson, and Wes Anderson, but are actually my favorites from them. (Though I haven't seen all of Andersons films.) The Brother's Bloom (review) has a few plot holes, but is of a fun and underused genre, is very funny and incredibly charming, has a great cast playing great characters, and (to me at least) is decidedly heartfelt.
(I know neither of these movies are commonly considered bad. This is the best I could do.)
(I just realized both these films star Adrien Brody. I wonder if that has anything to do with anything... .... ...eh.)
For The Darjeeling Limited the biggest criticism I hear is that it has no plot or makes no sense, but that is the appeal of Wes Anderson in the first place for me, and for some reason this one's particular brand of ambiguity resonates rather deeply with me. It does have seemingly pointless moments but also some meaningful ones too, and I like it all. I love watching the relationship of the brothers (oh hey -- both these movies focus on brothers too!) and their journey to find something that maybe they do find, but can't quite put their finger on what it is. For me, it works. Plus I love the music, and it's often hilarious.
8."It's only forever, not long at all." - Labyrinth If you could only watch one film for the rest of your life, what would
it be?
I'm gonna go with The Lord of the Rings trilogy on this one because I can get away with it counting as one film. Extended editions too, of course. Obviously if I could only watch one movie the rest of my life I'd want it to be a long one so it'll grow old more slowly, but really, if I could only watch one movie for the rest of my life I would spend a whole lot more time reading. In which case, I might pick The Way Way Back (review) because there's no book version of that.
But no -- let's not get complicated -- Middle Earth wins.
9."Were you rushing or were you dragging?” - Whiplash A long film you thought was perfectly paced:
To be honest I like long movies, and as long as I find the plot or the characters interesting I'm hard to bore. So how about this: It's technically a mini-series, not a film, but the 1995 Pride and Prejudice with Colin Firth. It's five hours long, and so well structured that I cannot leave the room for even two seconds without pausing it to prevent my missing anything good. Read my enamored review here!
"You can never get a film long enough, or a bowl of popcorn large enough to suit me." -- Me, plagiarizing C.S. Lewis a bit.
10."As you wish." - The Princess Bride Your film dream team. (Directors, writers, genre, actors, music,
whatever.)
Right now, after a bit of daydreaming, I would like to see Damien Chazelle write and direct a scifi noir film. I love the genre mashup of noir and scifi, and I think he absolutely had the ability to capture the right tone. His movies have a palpable energy to them and I'd love to see how that marries with subtle and dark tones like that of Blade Runner, Dark City, or Gattaca. The music could be jazzy since he likes that.
And because I've been noticing and enjoying these two a bunch lately, it should star Toby Kebbell and Vanessa Kirby. Neither of them get many leading roles -- that is to say, almost none -- but I absolutely think they have the talent for it, especially if the characters are not your typical leading types but more character-types. I bet Kirby could pull off the mysterious woman/possibly femme fatale excellently, and I know for a fact that Kebbell can do that hard-boiled-but-surprisingly-soft-on-the-inside type.
Since it's a Chazelle film it should have J.K. Simmons in an important supporting role too. Something for him to have fun with, or surprise with. It could be set in space, or the distant future, or just an alternate reality altogether; and I'd probably prefer if it focused mostly on character and intrigue, but had some good action in it too. With all those elements in place there would be no way the movie could disappoint me.
Now I'm depressed because it won't never exist!
_________________
I got this tag from Kyle Gaunt -- check out his YouTube channel here, and follow him on Twitter @kg_moviereviews! And if the tag seems fun to you, don't hesitate to participate! I suppose you can actually tag people if you want, but it's more of a loosely-structured thread. I hope you enjoyed reading my answers and weren't offended by my opinions which are definitely the only right opinions to have! Just kidding -- leave me a comment and tell me where I'm wrong! Or if you agree. Or just your thoughts in general. Thanks for reading!
Before I begin, I want to make two things very clear. 1: I did not pay to watch this movie. I would never do that. And 2: My motivation for watching it was so that I could confirm its status as a miserable, wilting pile of BS. Well -- BS confirmed.
Thanks JoJo moyes for inspiring me to write something better -- like this sentance. It has spelling and grammatical errors, but I'm not going to fix it to make a point about the height of the bar you set.
I knew it was, because I read the book (I was super, naively, embarrassingly unwitting to what it was), and since the movie is exactly like the book, I now have a nice opportunity to go on a ranting rampage and get a few things off my chest. So in case you're ignorant to this story, here it is in a nutshell. Girl (Emilia Clarke) is hired by rich parents (Janet McTeer and Charles Dance) to be a sort of care-giving companion to their previously wild playboy son (Sam Claflin) who was hit by a motorbike and now is a quadriplegic (basically he can move his head, and his fingers enough to drive his wheelchair). Girl and boy develop friendship, improve each other's lives, fall in love. Boy commits assisted suicide with the support of girl and parents. Isn't that so sweet? You're probably bawling already from the tragic romantic beauty of it all.
So the movie spends most of its time and more than most of its effort in trying to justify the suicide (still never sticking to one argument long enough to see it through, but more on that later) but in the beginning, before Clark learns of Will's intentions, there are a few events to keep one entertained. The growing friendship and the mutually improved lives were by comparison, well done, and bolstered by the movie's visual aspect which featured a lot of good-looking people wearing pretty clothes and surrounded by pretty, well filtered locations.
That's Brendan Coyle in the center. And Jenna Coleman is Clark's sister -- a pointless role outside of the book.
But the movie is torn between improving Will's life and making it tragic so that the end "works." He gets to spend all day being waited on, watching movies, listening to music, and rolling through beautiful English countryside, and his loving parents are rich and doting -- but no, his life is miserable. Examples? Well, he used to be a daredevil, and has explored places and done things that most would only dream of. Sounds like he was lucky to be able to do those things before the accident. He also had a girlfriend (Vanessa Kirby) who is now engaged to his old best friend and it's super awkward. But he attends their wedding and she makes a point of thanking him for coming. She also implies to Clark that the reason they broke up was because he pushed her away. I dunno y'all; it's an unfortunate situation, but she sounds like a decent girl.
On the flip side, Clark has her own boyfriend (Matthew Lewis), a fitness-obsessed, bit-of-a-doofus kind of guy you know is gonna be gone by then end. But again, there's really nothing wrong with him. He's just ignorant to Clark's wishes, like, he plans a holiday that he wants to do, which she pretends to be excited about! And then we're supposed to hate him for not understanding her? She won't tell him what she thinks about anything, so of course he thinks everything is fine. Then he starts getting jealous of Will, which, considering the romance that blooms later is totally justified. They finally break up and I feel more relieved for him, poor fellow.
At the wedding, Clark sits on Will's lap and they "dance" to shock the
snobby crowd, but we are never given any reason to think they are snobby
except that they're rich. And Will's rich too. And Clark...
Clark all by herself is just as confusing, and is also, I think, the movie's one casting flaw. Everyone else has pathetic or underused characters but is still a bunch of talented, well put-together and probably highly paid actors who got to phone in decent performances. Emilia Clarke acts by wiggling around her very flexible eyebrows, and misses the mark on a pretty cliched lead character. Bubbly, optimistic, fashion-brave, care-free Clark comes across as a self-righteous snob who will insult employees for doing their job. She plays everything like a comedy bit, and couldn't capture any semblance of genuineness. Oddly, most off was her singing. She sings like a mouse. Bad singers who don't care just let it out -- especially with a silly song like that.
On to the main event. So Clark discovers that Will has made an agreement with his parents to stick around for six months and then they'll let him kill himself. Will's mom still hopes he'll change his mind and she and Clark plan adventures and trips to try and make him see that life isn't so bad, the final trip being a vacation to some expensive resort on a tropical island. On these trips Will pushes Clark out of her comfort zone in ways she never could have dreamed, let alone had access to without him. On their last night in the tropics, he tells her that he was never happier than in those past six months, and then he casually invites her to come to the suicide resort with him.
And then they have a nice giggle about it and smile way too much to mask the fact that this movie is sick and disturbing.
First of all, WHAT?? If he doesn't want to die because he's unhappy then why does he want to die? Clark and others offer feeble arguments to all his reasoning, but none of the arguments are seen all the way through, because their natural conclusion is that he shouldn't kill himself. DUH. Unhappy? No, admittedly he is happy now. Quality of life? Granted, it's not at the extreme heights it was before, but he's still wealthy and surrounded by people who love him. Killing yourself because you can't skydive or windsurf anymore sounds more than a little petty and selfish. Very few fully able people have that kind of quality of life. Also he admits that the playboy him was a jerk and never would have given Clark a second look; seems like the accident made him a better person in the end. Then he says he wouldn't be able to stand being in a relationship with her without being able to have sex, which is also pretty petty, but I'll give him that one -- he should break up with her if that's how he feels. Suicide is maybe overkill in that scenario.
It seems to me that the only reason he has to kill himself is because he's disabled, not because the disability affects his life in any kind of significantly negative way. But the movie can't say that because it's evil and untrue. So they make up excuses.
So she's devastated because she thought she had changed his mind, and oh
yeah, she's in love with him now, so she goes home and mopes... but then comes around before it's too late and they make up, with him on what will be his death bed. The argument the movie settles on -- for the sake of the romance -- is that he loves Clark so much he wants her to go live her life without him holding her back. So before he kills himself he creates an itinerary of adventure for her to complete after he's gone and gives her some money to "buy her freedom." The end of the film shows her sitting at a cafe in France, reading his final letter. Alone.
Look at her: doesn't she look happy as she sits there ALL BY HERSELF READING THE WORDS OF THE MAN SHE LOVED WHO KILLED HIMSELF SO SHE COULD GO SIT ALONE??????
BS, honest and simple. There's no angle to look at this pile of crap that makes it even faintly resemble a beautiful, inspiring butterfly, but that's what we're constantly told it is. Are we really supposed to believe that her newfound capacity for travel is supposed to replace a relationship with a human being? It what world is her life better because she got to go to Paris alone? (And by the way, what exactly was it that stopped his going to France? Oh yeah, he wanted to be there as his old self... the playboy jerk who loved no one.) No -- her life was better because of him; it can't also be made better because he's gone. This story painted itself into a corner and stubbornly stuck to its ill-advised propaganda. A literal death grip.
What kind of message is this movie trying to send, anyway? Well obviously it's trying to push the "right to die" agenda and normalize assisted suicide. (I'm on Clark's cross-wearing mum on this point -- it's no better than murder. And also a fundamentally extremely deceitful idea.) But besides that, what does it accidentally imply at the same time? If you're unhappy you should be able to kill yourself. If your quality of life is in any way diminished from what it used to be or what you want it to be, you should be able to kill yourself. If someone loves you and wants to spend their life taking care of you, you're holding them back -- you should kill yourself. And most broadly: Selfish aspirations are more important than personal relationships. Essentially, the title -- you, before anything or anyone else.
Talented actors Charles Dance and Janet McTeer as: Everyone as they realize what they just watched. Also probably: Them regretting their involvement in the project.
I sincerely hope I'm not the only one who noticed all these terrible ideas ingrained in this terrible, miserable movie. Briefly on the technical side: Of course I wasn't watching to enjoy myself or be involved in the story, but I never had to bother with any effort to keep myself from being pulled in. I was never tempted -- never even nudged to be emotionally moved. The movie was stale, unromantic, whitewashed moral excrement. Pooped out by a male cow, and smeared over pages of a book and a screenplay by an ignorant, misguided person armed with an agenda and absolutely no ability in or inclination toward critical thought.
I wish this story would kill itself. We would all definitely be better off without it.
I will refrain from puns -- it's about time I refrain from puns! After that one, after that one...
The day Tim turns twenty-one, his father takes him aside and tells him the family secret. Like most family secrets, it's not exactly the sort of thing you'd want to go blabbing to everyone, but that's where the similarities end. Tim even has a hard time believing it. "This is such a weird joke..." he says hesitantly after his dad solemnly delivers the punch line of, "all the men in this family can time travel." Swearing revenge on his father for such a strange prank, he goes in search of a dark cupboard. Inside, he closes his eyes, clenches his fists, and thinks of the past -- yesterday's terrible New Years Eve party. When he opens his eyes again he's still in the cupboard, but he's wearing different clothes and music is blaring. Knowing what will happen, he takes the opportunity to fix a few things: not knocking over a table of drinks onto a couch full of the cool kids, and planting a kiss on the girl standing by him at midnight -- before returning to the present, full of questions.
On his father's advice, he opts not to use his abilities for the gain of wealth, but for the gain of happiness. In his words: "I'd really like to get a girlfriend." But even with time at your disposal, love can still be a very complicated thing to figure out.
In fact, the option of time travel can make it even more complicated.
My sister and I are currently in the middle of a long search for "the perfect classic rom-com." It's an elusive little critter, and I was tempted to end the search with this movie, but honestly, About Time is far too extraordinary to fall simply under the category of "rom-com." Although it is primarily made of romance and comedy, it is not at all formatted like a rom-com, and never comes close to the sugary fluff that defines the genre.
The most glaring difference to me is that this movie is all about the guy. Played by the absolutely adorable Irish ginger Domhnall Gleeson. You may recognize him as Ron Weasley's brother; you may recognize him in Star Wars 7 come May, provided he hasn't landed a part as an prosthetic-covered alien. I discovered him this summer when I found every single ginger actor in the UK in an attempt to figure out who the 12th Doctor should be/have been. Having seen him act now I think he'd be a fantasic Doctor... but I'm straying from the point. Gleeson is an exceptional lead here -- by any genre. The movie is about him (and time) and he is unquestionably the best of it. Tim can be awkward and dense, and makes mistakes, but we are always on his side no matter what. He is completely charming, kind, gracious, and caring, and downright hilarious in a wonderful, classic British high comedy sort of way. And that last bit goes for the whole movie too.
Romantic comedies with leading men always seem to be the best.
The supporting cast is brimming with talented faces. Like Bill Nighy as Tim's dad. Everything he does is, of course, masterful. Lindsay Duncan is quirky, or, rather, slightly off, and amusing as his mum. Lydia Wilson of "The Making of a Lady" is Kit Kat, the sister, and almost completely unrecognizable under the persona of a loopy and care-free hippie. The gorgeous Tom Hughes makes appearances as her troublesome boyfriend. And Tom Hollander is outrageous as the disturbed playwright uncle who hates everyone and everything. I laughed so hard at one of his scenes we had to rewind after we were finished as our laughing bled into the next scene. Every side character has the quirks to make them totally individual, and the natural portrayal to make them believably realistic.
Even the smallest side character is unique and smartly portrayed.
And then, and then, there is Rachel McAdams. She is technically the second main character, as the love interest, but she is one of two things (albeit the lesser of the two) that puts a slight damper of the magnificence of this film. It's probably all my fault; I'm just not a fan of McAdams. She just doesn't charm me. I like her considerably better when she plays... dislikeable people, like in Midnight in Paris, and here, her character Mary, the American living in London, insecure, sweet and sassy, only occasionally (and perhaps unintentionally) borders on... dislikable. But as far as her likable characters go, this is her best by my reckoning.
They were cute, but I did think she was a little out of his league -- opposite of the way we were supposed to think.
The bigger dampener is the R rating, and the content that caused it. The language exceeds a PG-13 by a count of about 4, and otherwise, there were two scenes left unwatched. Not the worst it could have been, but would the film suffer if it were tamed down a notch? I wouldn't think so, but that's not accounting for the butterfly effect. (It is a time travel movie after all.) If the maturity of the content had been brought down, perhaps the maturity of the message would have been dragged down with it. I can't see why it would, but I do know I've never seen a more appropriate rom-com with a theme equal to this one; in significance, or sincerity.
We and Tim go through life in this film together, and see the truth of real life reflected in its simple and honest artistry. He learns, and we are reminded -- that worrying instead of living through life is never profitable; that it's better to give out love than receive it, and that every day -- every moment -- is a gift worth appreciating. They are common themes, a dime a dozen in movies with no better ideas, but the true, sincere concept of Tim's tale. Through his eyes you see that these ideas may seem insignificant and frivolous until they are applied with powerful effect to one's own extraordinary, ordinary life.
No time travel necessary.
See you again a long time ago! (In a galaxy far, far away!)
