The Way, Way Back

Wow -- that was an incredible movie.

Such is the only thought I could muster once the credits rolled on this long-awaited movie. Let's see if I can create some longer, more coherent thoughts and opinions on why it's so incredible.

Duncan (Liam James) is going to be spending his entire summer in a beachfront cottage, and he's miserable about it. See, the cottage belongs to his mom Pam's (Toni Collette) boyfriend Trent (Steve Carell) who's overbearing and insulting in an underhandedly "well-meaning" way. He waits for Pam to be asleep before he tells Duncan, as he sits in "the way, way back" rear-facing seat of the station wagon that he thinks on a scale of 1 to 10, he ranks a 3, and callously encourages him to improve. Trent's daughter Steph is even less subtle in her disdain. Trent's friend Kip (Rob Corddry) and Joan (Amanda Peet) are obnoxious and patronizing. Then there's the neighbor, Betty (Allison Janney) with her rude, unfiltered mouth, her weird son Peter with a lazy eye, and sullen but pretty daughter Susanna, (AnnaSophia Robb) who just seems to bring out all the most embarrassing awkwardness in Duncan. Beachfront or no, this is looking like the beginning of an awful summer.

How to be miserable while on a yacht 101: Ridiculous life-vests.

To escape, Duncan bikes around town on a little pink bike and happens upon exactly what he desperately needs: Sam Rockwell. Owen is a fun-loving, full-time jokester and manager of Water Wizz, and most importantly, the direct opposite of Trent. Even though he never overlooks an opportunity to poke fun, he gives Duncan a job, and along with other water park employees Caitlin (Maya Rudolph) and Roddy and Lewis, (Nat Faxon and Jim Rash, also co-writers and directors) makes him begin to feel comfortable, welcome, and at home. So maybe this summer won't be complete torture after all.

Roddy, Owen, Duncan and Caitlin ready to procrastinate.

Okay, so that was a nice, short plot summary -- now where to start? How about with the spot-on and simply amazing writing and directing from Faxon and Rash -- their overall story in general is never ground-breaking or very original, I'd say it's a very classic indie coming-of-age plot, and I wouldn't say it's a bad thing, but it doesn't matter because the story goes way beyond ridiculous trappings like trying to be "original" and instead focuses on being actually meaningful, and honest. In that, it's wonderfully successful, and from it comes a surprising amount of originality. (How paradoxical!) Based partially on the writers' childhood memories, every situation has a sense of familiarity, particularly the awkward and painful moments, as we unfortunately all know the glory of an awkward stage. There's also a wonderful balance of sharp, brilliant comedy and potent, unforced drama, and we get a nice, hard look at human nature.

I also love how realistically the scenes flow, especially group scenes like this one.

The characters are perfectly fleshed out in that not-too-obvious way classic to independent films that I love. Each character is complex and realistic, and (more or less) has their commendable and flawed sides. And even though every one of them appear at first to fit snugly into a stereotype, finding just one word to perfectly describe any of them is difficult. Here is where praise for the writing begins to blend with praise for the acting. With this movie more than most, I realized the teamwork it takes to create such great characters, and Faxon and Rash were obviously very lucky and scored and all-around brilliant cast who enhanced their great characters in the most complementary way to the writing possible.

This lady, Allison Janney, is one prime example.

Duncan is basically the epitome troubled loner introvert hiding in a tightly closed shell, and Liam James embodies him impeccably, with pitiful awkwardness and slumped shoulders. It's impressive acting anyway for a fifteen-year-old, but I find it even more impressive considering the vast difference between this role and playing the younger version of class-clown Shawn Spencer in Psych for four years. When he left the show to get into films, I thought it was an ignorant move; I was wrong. Even with all those well-seasoned older actors constantly surrounding him and in spite of his character being such a wallflower, he still consistently holds the spotlight of our attention and affection.

I still think he was the best "little Shawn" though.

The only one who really distracts us from Duncan is the ever-incredible Mr. Rockwell. The great thing (or one of many, anyway) about Sam Rockwell -- and therefore Owen too -- is that he can be the most immature goof-off, spewing a relentless torrent of wise-cracks and punch lines, each more sharp and hilarious than the last, but when it's time to be serious, he's equally amazing, trading in his goofy immaturity for some somber and kind sincerity. Owen is the main source of the best and most consistently funny comedy I've seen in a long time, but he's also a part of the most compelling and heartfelt moments of the film.

This guy never ceases to amaze me.

Also worth a quick mention: Allison Janney is the next person in line to scene-steal with sharp comedy, and she does get away with a few, but in order to really appreciate her performance, watch her in an interview first or something -- otherwise you'll think she's naturally that way. Toni Collette is exactly as wonderful as Pam as you would expect her to be if you've seen her before. She plays the struggling single mother exceptionally well. And I don't hold the popular opinion that Steve Carell is a classically "likeable guy," I more appreciate his ability to be a funny jerk than a charming everyman, but still I felt shocked at how awful his character was being, and he did it horribly -- amazingly -- well. AnnaSophia Robb hit my "serious actress" radar with her role; Amanda Peet was very simply a perfect bit of casting, and Maya Rudolph had a cute dynamic going with Rockwell.

Really though, with a movie set at an awesome water park, you just can't go wrong!

Still, add up all these positives I've mentioned and it still comes short of how much I love this movie. I think what I'm leaving out are many wonderful, small, or seemingly insignificant details (some of which I cannot mention due to spoilers) that made this movie everything I was hoping and predicting it'd be. I love the subtlety in the movie with its straightforward pace, always from Duncan's perspective, and its simple scenes that understand that very often silence can be much more effective than even the best dialogue. The nostalgic vintage feel, the awesome soundtrack, or even tinier things, like that fact that no one uses cell phones, or that Susanna dresses a tinge more modestly than her "friends," all add a little to the wonder of the film. Then there's the last ten minutes or so -- a nine-digit budget and all the special effects in the world won't buy you an ending with a heart like that, plain and simple.

Jumping back to that awesome soundtrack I mentioned... Here is its best song -- or my favorite at least -- it's featured in its entirety in the film, matches it perfectly, and has a great set of lyrics: Power Hungry Animals by The Apache Relay.



But after ALL that, I still think my first thought sums it up the best...

Wow. What an incredible movie.

Upcoming Movie Roundup -- November

Ender's Game
Nov 1, PG-13
The first of two movies based on books releasing this month that interested me into reading the stories before their movies came out. This one caught my attention with it's cast full of favorites; Asa Butterfield, Harrison Ford, Ben Kingsley, Hailee Steinfeld and Abigail Breslin, and after reading the book (which I recommend -- it was very good) my interest has been holding steady. Since it came out today I already know what critics generally think. They say it's not quite as good as the book, but still faithful to it. So I'll probably enjoy it and forgive any little slip-ups, but I'm hoping the visual side will be spectacular if nothing else. I'm already sure the acting will be great though -- with a cast like that, it could hardly be otherwise. Definitely seeing this. The only question is, "when?"




Thor: The Dark World
Nov 8, PG-13
Finally Loki gets his own movie... What? Never mind that title! Okay, okay, so Chris Hemsworth is still the title hero here. And we all know for sure that the Ninth Doctor, Chrisopher Eccleston is the baddie, Malekith. So the question is, which side will Tom Hiddleston's Loki fall to this time? Mostly I'm just worried he won't make it to the end alive... But, besides my pessimistic fangirly conjecture, this movie is looking great -- visually and scope-wise, several steps above the first, with an intriguing plot (particularly for Loki fans) and promises of lots and lots of action, drama, and comedy. I doubt we'll see anything groundbreaking though... besides Thor's hammer in many cool action sequences that is. Hugely anticipated, absolutely-must-see, and I expect very much to love it.




The Hunger Games: Catching Fire
Nov 22, PG-13
Do I even really need to say anything? This looks crazy good. Crazy. I loved the first one, and I'm prepared to love this one even more. The trailer looks fantastic, breath-taking, and everything seems to be in order for this to be one of the biggest blockbusters of the year. The returning cast led by Jennifer Lawrence promises to be better than ever, and the and the new characters appear to be adapted flawlessly. I have one tiny reservation, and that is Sam Claflin as Finnick... I have yet to be impressed with his acting skills, but, I cannot deny he looks the part, and movies like Pirates 4 and Snow White and the Huntsman aren't exactly where you'd expect to find great acting anyway, so I'm hopeful. All I can do now is wait with anxious excitement. And maybe read the book one more time...




Frozen
Nov 27, PG
This movie reminds me very much of Tangled. Which is what they were going for I'm sure. (The titles are even similar.) So if you've read my review of Tangled you know that I love it, but you'll also know that I had absolutely no desire to see it based on it's horribly boring and stupid first trailer. That's pretty much the case here, except that now that I know the movie will likely be better than the trailer, I'm more willing to reserve judgement. Starring Kristen Bell, with the awesome Idina Menzel and Alan Tudyk, with a plot that mixes Disney Princesses with Narnia (eternal winter anyone?) and cheesiness and apparently a love triangle, (and the strangest "animal" sidekick EVER) it looks almost unbearably silly, but I can still hope this animation flick will follow in Rapunzel's footsteps.




Bonus: Television!

Almost Human
Series Premiere: Nov 4th
One of New Zealand's finest, Karl Urban stars in this new FOX series set in a futuristic world where cop are assigned robots for partners. And Karl is ah... a Renaissance man -- he doesn't like robots, ever since they were the cause of his human partner's death and his own robotic leg. So he gets assigned to a weird one that acts like a regular, emotional human (Michael Ealy). Do you get it? They're both almost human. Since this is a FOX series I'll try to not let myself get too attached, but in my opinion, Karl Urban in a weekly futuristic crime drama is a must-see.
Note: Well, the premiere date was the 4th, but now is pushed back to the 17th (Sun, after football to draw in more viewers) with the next episode in its normal slot on the 18th. They're calling it a "2-night series premiere."




Doctor Who 50th Anniversary Special: The Day of The Doctor
Nov 23rd
Matt Smith and the Eleventh Doctor say "goodbye." David Tennant and Billie Piper say "hello again," (and "did you miss me?" for extra awesome. (Oh, yes.)) and then "goodbye again" as the Tenth Doctor and Rose. And Jenna Coleman as Clara says "hello" to Peter Capaldi as Twelve (hopefully). I don't know what John Hurt is gonna be doing, or saying. And I don't know what the plot is gonna be. But I am way beyond excited. But also way beyond dreading, because Sarah will have to say "goodbye" to her two favorite Doctors at once, and she's not sure she can handle it. She might be going crazy already -- she's talking about herself in the third person...



What are you most excited to see this month?

Moon

One of the best, most overlooked actors, the extraordinary Sam Rockwell stars all alone in this understated and also overlooked science fiction thriller written specifically for him. Sam plays Sam, a lonely astronaut living on a moon base to oversee harvesting of Helium 3, a source of clean energy. His contract was three years, and his only companion an AI robot named GERTY, (voiced by Kevin Spacey) and the occasional recorded video message from his employers or his wife back on Earth. Now there's only a couple weeks before his three years is up, and not a moment too soon; Sam is about to go crazy with cabin fever. He's preparing to finally go home, but then... some strange things begin to happen. Maybe Sam isn't only about to go crazy after all.

The one and only.

It seems as if including Sam Rockwell in a cast guarantees two things -- one being that the movie will be significantly improved, and often completely made by his presence, and two, that the movie will then be inexplicably overlooked or underrated, especially if that movie is set in space. Case in point: The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, Galaxy Quest, and this movie -- Moon. It's a little sad for the movie to be so commonly underrated, but mostly I find it satisfying to think how I'm one of few who have discovered and appreciate this gem -- like the feeling you have when you're in on that really great in-joke.

So here I am, doing my part to include you in the "joke" that is this pretty-darned-amazing movie. But as much as I like it, I can't recommend it for everyone without some reserve. It's rated R first of all, for twenty or so uses of the f-word, by my count. (And that makes this the first R-rated movie to make it into my portfolio of movies reviewed, a noteworthy milestone by my reckoning.) Other than the language though, there's not much worth a complaint -- brief rear nudity, and a scene of kissing I'd give a medium PG-13. But more importantly, to really appreciate this movie, you have to like its type -- serious, understated, edgy, and a little bit unsettling.

GERTY is happy!

And now there's danger that if I'm not careful, I may begin to rant, and go off topic... that topic being the special effects. They're worth mentioning because Moon was an independent film, and had a relatively small budget for a sci-fi movie (five million) yet its looks are deceivingly impressive. The moon's surface, big harvesting vehicles, and the base all look great -- no corners cut, nothing missing or left out. Practical effects were used to their full potential, and the often overused CGI was included only when necessary, or for that final touch. The result isn't dazzlingly beautiful futuristic space scenery, but more gritty and foreboding, and has a very realistic, down-to-earth feel (so to speak) which perfectly matches the tone of the film. The effects are used as they should be; to support the character driven story by simply making its world believable. Here's where I move on before ranting occurs...

A terrible job... but the view is a definite perk.

Now, as you might have immediately understood when I said earlier that the role of Sam (and in fact the entire movie) was written for Rockwell, the casting, characterization and acting was immaculate. You can't go wrong with Sam Rockwell and edgy sci-fi. Sam the character was written extremely well for its actor, and kudos for that goes to writer/director Duncan Jones (in his film debut, no less). Then, in the general sense of acting -- believability, the right balance of emotions, and natural line delivery -- Rockwell is great, just as he should be. Nuanced and melancholy, with his signature side of quirky, and he does it totally alone, with practically nothing to play off of. What really blew me away in this piece though was his characterization. It was fantastic, and had a bit of an awesome surreal effect to watch... and it's something you really have to see for yourself to fully understand.

Like this. The tiny wooden church makes sense if you've seen the movie.

I wish I could explain in more detail the charms of this movie -- more about the understatedly thoughtful and unique mysterious plot, or why exactly Rockwell's performance impresses so greatly, but spoilers prevent me. All I have left to say is that Moon is not a perfect film, it has its flaws, and as I said before it's not catered to be appealing to everyone, but it certainly is to me. And not only -- just a lot -- because it exclusively stars one of my favorite actors. From my perspective, Moon is all-around great, and from every angle a detailed and masterfully crafted, engrossing sci-fi tale.

Epic

"Epic" is the perfect, ironic title for this movie, because everything is tiny... but just because something's small doesn't mean it's not epic. Course, it doesn't mean it is either...

Yeah, I'm not sure I understand either... On to the review!

Mary Katherine, or M.K., (Amanda Seyfried) is a troubled teenager who just lost her mother. She goes to live in the middle of nowhere with her estranged dad, who's a bit wacko. See, he has this crazy theory that the woods are inhabited with a race of tiny advanced people, and, well, he's right. Tiny human-ish versions of leaves, flowers, sticks and insects live in the forest. The leaf men are the warriors, riding on birds, and protecting their home and Queen from the evil rot. Amongst them, is a seasoned captain, Ronin (Colin Farrell) and a young wayward warrior he tries to keep in line, Nod. (Josh Hutcherson) When M.K. is magically shrunk down to their size, she discovers not only that her father is right about the tiny people, but they also need her help. With the assistance of Ronin, Nod, and two snails-- er, excuse me -- a snail and a slug, she sets out for an important mission to save the forest from the literally-rotten-to-the-core villain. (Christoph Waltz)

And she thought he was crazy!

The first thing you'll notice about this movie is that it's pretty predictable. Okay, it's downright predictable. Disappointing, especially considering the potential of the premise, which in spite of its promising originality, can't make up for a plot taken straight from the mold. There's so much room for creating with the tiny imaginative world, and what do the writers do with it? Doubtlessly inspired by their title, they go big, and environmental, with the fate of the forest at stake, only brushing the surface of creative possibilities. And that's pretty much how the whole film goes -- anything that turned out good is directly counter-weighted by something else that falls short.

"...can you imagine the possibilities of this!?" Who said that quote? (Hint: it's from a movie I wish this one was more like.)

For an example (and to move along) if they'd concentrated more on characters, and made them root-able and loveable, the entire story could have been about M.K. trying to get home, (or something even more creative than what I can think of) and it could have been great. Sure, not exactly "epic," but involving -- I find it easier to connect with actual characters than the things those characters care about, so make the characters relatable. This is a no-brainer. Now, M.K. is a very well-balanced heroine; smart, goofy, sweet, not too girly and not too tomboyish, but even with all the development she gets as the main character, she still feels under-developed. Same goes double that for Ronin and Nod. Ronin fares better thanks to Farrell's more seasoned talents, and his character being cooler and more understated, but apparently no one was on the same page with Nod. Every so often, Hutcherson's vocal inflection doesn't match how his character was animated. (At one point the voice sounds mad, but the character looks sad.) I've never seen this happen before, and the confused result is very distracting, and disappointing to me (who was hoping for a Swashbuckling, funny Flynn Rider type character, and got let down.)
 

They're fine when they're not talking though!

The problem is with the animators. I don't understand it, but for some reason the human (and humanoid) faces are blandly animated in general; "surprise" is the only emotion done with any real success. It's weird, because otherwise the animation is top-notch. The tiny world, and the forest, and even all the normal things like the house are lovely, and characters like the snail and slug are very expressive, with almost nothing to work with! (Or maybe that's why they were better.) I suppose it also helps that they were solely comic characters. In fact, anything that has to do with comedy in the movie is done well, with only a few miss-fires, and that may be this movie's redeeming quality (even though most of the best jokes are in the trailer.)

I want to be tiny so I can be epic while riding a hummingbird...

And now that I've picked the whole movie apart, I hope it won't be too much of a surprise when I say, I enjoyed it. Well, mostly. After all, how could I hate something that made me laugh? It had its moments of being cute as well, and when there weren't faces being weird, it was stylish, and pleasant to look at. And I can still enjoy predictable plots, as long as they're executed well, as this one was -- paced evenly, and with no holes... as far as I can remember. And that is as positive a note as I can manage for my not-so-epic Epic review ending.

Much Ado About Nothing

Ah, such a quaint happening -- a Shakespeare adaptation... modernized, but with the original script intact... filmed in black and white... at the director, Joss Whedon's own house... in the span of about twelve days... with a bunch of famous people he calls "friends." I believe I had never been more interested in Shakespeare in my life.

And I finally got to see it, but now I meet with a little difficulty. I am no expert on Shakespeare, and honestly I probably feel a bit too proud of myself for understanding this movie, though it was relatively easy. I don't feel qualified to critique this movie. I lack the experience and understanding to know if this is a good adaption or not. I only know what I happened to like and dislike. So let this be a disclaimer, and from here on I'll go ahead and make this review as biased, subjective and otherwise personally opinionated as I like. As, really, these things should be.

Leonato is ashamed... no... just hungover.

Apart from one annoying hiccup, I have never has more fun watching Shakespeare than with this little film. And I'll address that one problem first, that is, that in spite of the original script remaining majorly intact, the story has been pointlessly sexed up, just to the level of  PG-13. The villain's accomplice was changed to be a woman seemingly for the sole purpose of their being a couple to add a random inappropriate scene. Then there is another exactly where you'd think it'd be if you know the story. It spoils the movie just enough to make disappointment rain on the otherwise delightful experience. This is the first and last negative thing I will say about the movie, on to the good stuff!

Like the cast. Though this is another situation where my lack of Shakespearean knowledge weighs me down, but, in general, no one sounded unnatural or like they were just saying lines. The leading couple, Beatrice and Benedick, (Amy Acker, and Alexis Denisof) are fiery and goofy -- former mostly to former and latter mostly to latter -- well matched and fun to watch. I particularly love the hilarious, over-the-top scenes where they try desperately to overhear "secret" conversations staged for their benefit. And the one scene between, where Benedick goes through a series of lunges, pushups, and crunches, in an obvious attempt to impress the icy lady.

The comedic styles of Shakespeare and Whedon suit each other very well.

Also standing out in the cast is the awesome Clark Gregg as Leonato, delivering the comedic one-liners only slightly more brilliantly than his dramatic lines. Sean Maher is the complete opposite of his Firefly character, and impressively so, as Don John, the cold, scheming evil villain, and his Firefly captain, Nathan Fillion is probably the funniest character, Dogberry. I laughed many times. And the secondary couple, Hero, played by newcomer, Jillian Morgese, and Claudio, Fran Kranz, easily manage to be an adorable couple is spite of relatively limited screen-time. Everyone in this movie is so obviously having a blast, how can we do anything but also have a blast watching them?

The most effortlessly stylish "home video" ever.

It was an interesting choice to set the film in modern times but still keep the original Shakespearean language, and it was, in all likelihood, a choice of convenience, (scripts and period costumes cost time and money) but it worked in a surprising, unique way. A little jolting at the very first, but only for the first few lines at most, before it becomes perfectly natural. Ladies in floaty dresses, men in suits and the black and white (also a convenience... that I wholeheartedly approve of) suspends your disbelief; it's not set in modern times or the 1600's, it's set in a time and a world of its own.

And a world, at that, that I would by no means mind living in -- a laid-back, joyful place where making a movie is as easy and fun as calling up your friends for a party and grabbing a video camera and a book for source material. And for someone like me, that is nothing short of inspiring.

Upcoming Movie Roundup -- October

October's here already, huh? Well, as predicted, I didn't get to the theater for any movies last month, but I did finally get to see a much anticipated movie that released four months ago... Joss Whedon's Much Ado About Nothing! ...which I will be reviewing soon (whenever I simultaneously have time and inspiration) Anyways, October has more interesting movies than September did in my opinion, but still no absolutely-must-sees. (Just wait 'till November for that!)

Gravity
Oct 4th, PG-13
This space disaster thriller starring George Clooney and Sandra Bullock is already making waves with a current 96% tomatometer on Rottentomates. I think I may be missing something, but I'm wondering what is so amazingly interesting about a movie about two people who get lost in space? Because it's one of the most terrifying things EVER? Or just because it hasn't been done before? At any rate I'm only interested because other people are interested and that's not quite enough interest for now.



Captain Phillips
Oct 11th, PG-13
Based on a book that was based on a true story, Paul Greengrass (Bourne Supremacy and Ultimatum) directs the great Tom Hanks as the title character who has his ship hijacked by pirates. Pirates! This is very interesting to me, and promises to be exciting and well-acted. If the positive reviews keep coming in, I just may have to see this sometime.



Romeo and Juliet
Oct 11th, PG-13
It seems Shakespeare is back in style. And with it, I am becoming a fan, through Tom Hiddleston in The Hollow Crown, and Whedon's presentation of Much Ado. Romeo and Juliet follows in the footsteps, but it's important to have more drawing power for your Shakespeare adaption than just Shakespeare himself, like Hiddleston or Whedon. So what's this one's? Writer, Julian Fellows of Downton Abbey? Or young actress Hailee Steinfeld as Juliet? Steinfeld is certainly the most drawing to me, she is a brilliant actress, but her co-star, Douglas Booth does the opposite. But the cast also boasts Paul Giamatti and Stellan Skarsgård, and then with Steinfeld, and my new appreciation of Shakespeare, I think I must admit I'd like to see this movie.



The Fifth Estate
Oct 18th, R
Benedict Cumberbatch. Would any of us have even heard of this movie if it wasn't for that name? Nevertheless, here I am. Another true story, Cumberbatch stars as Australian Julian Assange, "founder" of a webpage where dirty government secrets are leaked to the world. Daniel Brühl, Dan Stevens, Laura Linney and Anthony Mackie support. The movie trailer asks us to consider whether right or wrong, whether Assange is a hero or traitor, but I worry the film may try to show us the answer. Reviews are very mixed, which boosts my theory, but honestly, if I see this, it will be for Cumberbatch's acting, and not much else.



What movies have caught your interest this month?

New Trailer: Desolation of Smaug

An exciting feeling of restless anticipation will surround me throughout the next week or so, now that I have seen the latest Hobbit trailer! Have a look for yourself:



Okay, I don't usually admit these types of things, but, I fangirled. Like with the first Hobbit movie, I can confidently predict that at least two things will happen in this movie perfectly: Martin Freeman's Bilbo (of course) and Benedict Cumberbatch's Smaug. He will undoubtedly be... well... stupendous! And the scenes they'll have together... oh my. I am also very excited for the potential that Luke Evan's Bard is showing. he's shaping up to be the Aragorn of these films!

What do you think, Hobbit fans, of the new trailer? What new characters are you most excited to see? Is it possible that December 13th could come too soon?