Movie-wise, July offered no surprises -- I saw Star Trek Beyond, it was almost exactly what I was expecting, and I thoroughly enjoyed it! Check out my review here! Not-so-great reviews for Jason Bourne kept me from jumping in on opening weekend, but (especially considering that I liked Legacy which has the same RT score) I'm still interested to catch it in theaters. Just need to do it before Suicide Squad comes out!
However, there was a fantastic surprise that I never saw coming in the TV category. That is, one day whilst browsing Netflix I came across a Netflix original show that looked very interesting, and one night my brothers dad and I plunged in. The show is called Stranger Things, and if you've seen it you know that, well, basically our world was turned upside down. It's a science fiction set in the 80's and revolves around kids, much like Super 8 -- but darker. We watched the last of eight episodes last night and I'm still reeling. A review will probably be forthcoming.
What did you watch that was good in July? And are you planning to see anything in August? Here's what's on my radar:
Suicide Squad
Aug 5th; PG-13
August's big event movie is it's first movie. Suicide Squad is very highly anticipated by superhero fans, and promises big things for DC, which has been struggling for a long time to recover and find a voice again after Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy. I don't think Suicide Squad is guaranteed to be a great film, but no matter what, I do think it's a bold step in the right direction. It looks like DC version of Guardians of the Galaxy, and that seems very much like a good thing. I'm also surprised that it landed a PG-13 rating, but not disappointed -- I'm sure they can go dark enough. The trailer is equal parts fun and edgy, its got the cast, and its got the hype. Hopefully the Squad hits their goal!
The Little Prince
August 5th; PG
This is an interesting case. You might remember that back in March I included this film in my list -- but it never actually released. Instead, a week before the release, Paramount dropped the film completely and without explanation. Now Netflix had picked it up and it will be streaming on the 5th. Very strange. But that said, I'm still interested in seeing it, and since I kinda doubt I would have seen it in the theater anyway, I don't mind that it'll be free to watch at home in a couple days. It's still got its large, top-notch cast, and I still think it looks like a good watch.
Pete's Dragon
Aug 12; PG
I remember watching and liking the original when I was very young, but that's no real incentive for me to watch this remake. I'd just as soon have it stay a fond memory. And honestly, this movie doesn't even look like it'll be that good, even if it is supposed to be a kid's movie. I'm not surprised they're trying it, but it really seems like a left-field idea. However, the animation will definitely be better this time, and the cast includes Bryce Dallas Howard, Wes Bentley, and, most importantly, Karl Urban. And I will literally watch anything that has Karl Urban in it. So I can pretty much guarantee you that I will watch this someday.
Anthropoid
Aug 12th (limited); R
I will also watch anything that had Cillian Murphy in it. This WWII spy film is different from the above though, because it looks like the kind of movie I'd be interesting in and enjoy even if it didn't star one of my favorite actors. The trailer is very intense and suspenseful. So it has my interest doubly.
Edge of Winter
Aug 12 (limited); R
And this one has Tom Holland! I think it's actually getting a lot more attention than a film like it normally would because of his presence. It's certainly not the sort of film that could really attract me without a familiar cast. But even with Holland this isn't a movie meant for a wide audience. It looks very psychological and disturbing actually -- in a way that is very intriguing, but also a way that could maybe be depressing in the end. but if I ever find it streaming somewhere, I doubt I'll be able to resist -- Holland, or my curiosity.
Ghost Team
Aug 12 (limited); PG-13
Maybe this is what I'll see in lieu of Ghostbusters 2016. An original ghost hunters comedy! With Jon Heder! The trailer makes it seem like the balance of scary and funny will be really good. The comedy in the trailer isn't laugh-out-loud funny to me, but it has an amusing and appealing natural flow to it. Looks like it could be a quirky and goofy modern-day Ghostbusters-type little flick. And that sounds nice to me!
Ben-Hur
Aug 19th; PG-13
Oh good grief! Just stop with these remakes that do nothing but try to ride the coattails of the originals already! Based on the trailer, this movies sole purpose for existing is just to to that chariot race... so just think up an original idea that allows for chariot racing and do that. Please. This this just pathetic.
The Hollars
Aug 26th (limited); PG-13
Aww, this movie looks so cute! That kinda sounds like a terrible thing to say, but really this trailer just evokes a calm, charming, and casually funny vibe that is really appealing to me right now. A lot like John Krasinski's normal vibe actually, which totally makes sense since he's the star and director! There's also Sharlto Copley, who is awesome, and Mary Elizabeth Winstead, and Anna Kendrick. Sounds like a worthwhile family dramedy to me!
Showing posts with label Wes Bentley. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Wes Bentley. Show all posts
Monday, August 1, 2016
Friday, December 4, 2015
Interstellar
Some Spoilers within.
Crops on Earth are dying. Corn is the last one to survive, and only a matter of years away from meeting the same fate. And then it'll be humanity's turn. But NASA has been working in secret on a way to save the humans. When a black hole opened up in space near Saturn, they saw their chance and took it -- sending astronauts in to explore the planets in the new galaxy, in the hopes that they'll find a habitable one.
Through a series of strange events, Cooper, a pilot-turned-farmer discovers NASA's secret headquarters. There he is told the truth about Earth's impending demise and is recruited to lead one last mission into the black hole -- to visit the three planets where the surviving astronauts are sending out signals indicating that the planet is potentially habitable. Knowing that the mission would take many years, Cooper doesn't want to leave his two children behind, but takes the job anyway, to save them.
Never mind if it's enjoyable; never mind if it's entertaining; the biggest issue and controversy surrounding Christopher Nolan's latest blockbuster epic is whether or not it's scientifically viable. I started out without any specific explanations of the science behind this movie, but I had heard about relative time in space travel, and I know all about paradoxes too... because Doctor Who. So the parts in the film that had to do with space travel -- the black hole, the time differences, the technical aspects -- made sense to me as the film explained them. It would be a whole other issue if the story was being sold as a true story, but it's science fiction, so making sense within its own explanation is all I require to give a stamp of approval.
The previously mentioned aspects I can see the more involved (read: geeky) fans debating over, about potential holes, or whether or not the science is applicable in reality, but a lot of the less science-y events made we wonder how far people's claims of this film's incredible accuracy actually goes. Are people swallowing that the Earth will eventually die via the natural extinction of plants? That humans will eventually evolve to be able to see and manipulate time? I love a good bootstrap paradox in my entertainment, but that involves literal time travel (not just space travel "time travel"), backwards time travel, and that, as fun as it is to enjoy in a film, is a little silly to call scientifically accurate.
Now that I've dealt with that, on to whether or not Interstellar is enjoyable and entertaining -- an underrated point that I put a lot of importance on when evaluating entertainment. And this is actually a pretty unique case. Usually in a big blockbuster I have a backup for if the plot fails to engage and impress; the cast. Usually there's at least one actor or character present that I can turn my attention to. This movie, not so much. It has a huge cast, but isn't made up of many actors that I'm automatically biased towards. Plus Matthew McConaughey was the only constant character, and I'm neutral towards him. I didn't find much to connect with Cooper on, except that I really did appreciate his extreme will to survive because of his love for his children (child, really). Only, that came from the script.
Anne Hathaway I actually dislike generally, and her character being so dramatically sentimental and inept (she was probably a descendant of Gravity's Ryan Stone) didn't help one bit. She killed my favorite character, Wes Bentley, who died predictably early. Then all I had to look forward to was Matt Damon's appearance, which ended in surprise when Mann turned out to be a coward and a villain. And while I'm on the subject, can I just ask; why did Mann want to kill Cooper and the others? I mean, they all wanted to leave. I just can't see what he thought it would help. If you have an idea about that I'd love to hear it. The only possibility I see is that he was just plain crazy. Cooper's daughter Murph was best when being played by Jessica Chastain, who handled the potentially annoying characteristics of the character much better than the younger portrayal. As for the son, Tom, he was set up for development as the younger, but once he grew into Casey Affleck, no use was made of it. I was sad for him though because Cooper never seemed to care one iota about him compared with Murph. Michael Caine was around, which was a good thing, and so was Topher Grace all of a sudden, and I spent a lot of time wondering where he came from... and who he was.
So since the entertainment "backup" of the cast was so slight and so often absent, I had to almost solely rely on the entertaining elements of the plot to involve and impress me. On that score the film skews toward to positive side. The movie was overlong in my opinion, but it was able to keep me interested while waiting for the cool things to happen. When the cool things did happen they weren't so exciting as to change the tone which helped. If they had been, the slow parts in between would have been more boring by comparison, and since there was more time spent in the in between, that wouldn't have been good.
Visually, the movie was pretty fantastic, with consistently great cinematography, even during the scenes that weren't really going for the "wow" factor. Hoyte Van Hoytema is cinematographer instead of Nolan's usual Wally Pfister, and he gives the movie a fresh look, but it still maintains that Chris Nolan flavor too. You know what I mean. In the big "wow" scenes the effects live up to the hype and the vision they are portraying. Even if there isn't much to see that the trailer didn't show us. The most memorable part of the whole film is how creatively beautiful it is.
Here's something I don't usually mention: the score. Typically, unless they're particularly good or particularly bad, they don't stand out to me. Well this one stands out. In a particularly bad way. I suppose I should give Nolan and Hans Zimmer credit for attempting something bold, but for me it wound up being mostly ineffective, almost always distracting and nerve-grating, and often way too loud, covering up dialogue. In fact, the sound in this movie was just the pits. Characters would mumble and whisper, barely audible, and then five minutes later would scream their heads off with no evidence of dampening. I spent the whole movie adjusting the volume. I don't care what realistic, dramatic, or edgy effect you're going for; if it causes your viewers to rewind to hear a line right before blowing their eardrums out, it's a bad idea.
I would have liked the characters if they'd been played by different actors; I may have liked the actors if their characters were better written. The science would have impressed me more if not for random gaps in logic, and everything that happens after Cooper goes into a black hole the second time. But, the big twist would have been cooler if it didn't take itself so seriously. The big twist also would have been less predictable if less time had been spent hinting at it... And I would probably want to see it again -- if I didn't have to sit through it all again.
A little too ambitious for its own good, Interstellar never settles on what it wants to be. It winds up in an awkward middle ground of incomplete brilliant ideas and deeply thoughtful hogwash. It's too serious and focused on the theories and the science to be thoroughly entertaining as a sci-fi space adventure; too out there and theatrical with its elaborate fiction to be taken seriously for its theories and science. A grand and beautiful mess.
Crops on Earth are dying. Corn is the last one to survive, and only a matter of years away from meeting the same fate. And then it'll be humanity's turn. But NASA has been working in secret on a way to save the humans. When a black hole opened up in space near Saturn, they saw their chance and took it -- sending astronauts in to explore the planets in the new galaxy, in the hopes that they'll find a habitable one.
Through a series of strange events, Cooper, a pilot-turned-farmer discovers NASA's secret headquarters. There he is told the truth about Earth's impending demise and is recruited to lead one last mission into the black hole -- to visit the three planets where the surviving astronauts are sending out signals indicating that the planet is potentially habitable. Knowing that the mission would take many years, Cooper doesn't want to leave his two children behind, but takes the job anyway, to save them.
 |
| Ladies and gentlemen; 3001: A Space Odyssey. |
Never mind if it's enjoyable; never mind if it's entertaining; the biggest issue and controversy surrounding Christopher Nolan's latest blockbuster epic is whether or not it's scientifically viable. I started out without any specific explanations of the science behind this movie, but I had heard about relative time in space travel, and I know all about paradoxes too... because Doctor Who. So the parts in the film that had to do with space travel -- the black hole, the time differences, the technical aspects -- made sense to me as the film explained them. It would be a whole other issue if the story was being sold as a true story, but it's science fiction, so making sense within its own explanation is all I require to give a stamp of approval.
The previously mentioned aspects I can see the more involved (read: geeky) fans debating over, about potential holes, or whether or not the science is applicable in reality, but a lot of the less science-y events made we wonder how far people's claims of this film's incredible accuracy actually goes. Are people swallowing that the Earth will eventually die via the natural extinction of plants? That humans will eventually evolve to be able to see and manipulate time? I love a good bootstrap paradox in my entertainment, but that involves literal time travel (not just space travel "time travel"), backwards time travel, and that, as fun as it is to enjoy in a film, is a little silly to call scientifically accurate.
 |
| Short answer: no; it's not scientifically accurate. Proof? Bookcases. |
Now that I've dealt with that, on to whether or not Interstellar is enjoyable and entertaining -- an underrated point that I put a lot of importance on when evaluating entertainment. And this is actually a pretty unique case. Usually in a big blockbuster I have a backup for if the plot fails to engage and impress; the cast. Usually there's at least one actor or character present that I can turn my attention to. This movie, not so much. It has a huge cast, but isn't made up of many actors that I'm automatically biased towards. Plus Matthew McConaughey was the only constant character, and I'm neutral towards him. I didn't find much to connect with Cooper on, except that I really did appreciate his extreme will to survive because of his love for his children (child, really). Only, that came from the script.
Anne Hathaway I actually dislike generally, and her character being so dramatically sentimental and inept (she was probably a descendant of Gravity's Ryan Stone) didn't help one bit. She killed my favorite character, Wes Bentley, who died predictably early. Then all I had to look forward to was Matt Damon's appearance, which ended in surprise when Mann turned out to be a coward and a villain. And while I'm on the subject, can I just ask; why did Mann want to kill Cooper and the others? I mean, they all wanted to leave. I just can't see what he thought it would help. If you have an idea about that I'd love to hear it. The only possibility I see is that he was just plain crazy. Cooper's daughter Murph was best when being played by Jessica Chastain, who handled the potentially annoying characteristics of the character much better than the younger portrayal. As for the son, Tom, he was set up for development as the younger, but once he grew into Casey Affleck, no use was made of it. I was sad for him though because Cooper never seemed to care one iota about him compared with Murph. Michael Caine was around, which was a good thing, and so was Topher Grace all of a sudden, and I spent a lot of time wondering where he came from... and who he was.
 |
| Woman, please, pull yourself together. |
So since the entertainment "backup" of the cast was so slight and so often absent, I had to almost solely rely on the entertaining elements of the plot to involve and impress me. On that score the film skews toward to positive side. The movie was overlong in my opinion, but it was able to keep me interested while waiting for the cool things to happen. When the cool things did happen they weren't so exciting as to change the tone which helped. If they had been, the slow parts in between would have been more boring by comparison, and since there was more time spent in the in between, that wouldn't have been good.
Visually, the movie was pretty fantastic, with consistently great cinematography, even during the scenes that weren't really going for the "wow" factor. Hoyte Van Hoytema is cinematographer instead of Nolan's usual Wally Pfister, and he gives the movie a fresh look, but it still maintains that Chris Nolan flavor too. You know what I mean. In the big "wow" scenes the effects live up to the hype and the vision they are portraying. Even if there isn't much to see that the trailer didn't show us. The most memorable part of the whole film is how creatively beautiful it is.
Here's something I don't usually mention: the score. Typically, unless they're particularly good or particularly bad, they don't stand out to me. Well this one stands out. In a particularly bad way. I suppose I should give Nolan and Hans Zimmer credit for attempting something bold, but for me it wound up being mostly ineffective, almost always distracting and nerve-grating, and often way too loud, covering up dialogue. In fact, the sound in this movie was just the pits. Characters would mumble and whisper, barely audible, and then five minutes later would scream their heads off with no evidence of dampening. I spent the whole movie adjusting the volume. I don't care what realistic, dramatic, or edgy effect you're going for; if it causes your viewers to rewind to hear a line right before blowing their eardrums out, it's a bad idea.
 |
| Usually we take a film's sound for granted; here it's the biggest downfall. Such a little thing... |
I would have liked the characters if they'd been played by different actors; I may have liked the actors if their characters were better written. The science would have impressed me more if not for random gaps in logic, and everything that happens after Cooper goes into a black hole the second time. But, the big twist would have been cooler if it didn't take itself so seriously. The big twist also would have been less predictable if less time had been spent hinting at it... And I would probably want to see it again -- if I didn't have to sit through it all again.
A little too ambitious for its own good, Interstellar never settles on what it wants to be. It winds up in an awkward middle ground of incomplete brilliant ideas and deeply thoughtful hogwash. It's too serious and focused on the theories and the science to be thoroughly entertaining as a sci-fi space adventure; too out there and theatrical with its elaborate fiction to be taken seriously for its theories and science. A grand and beautiful mess.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)