Category: New Releases

When We Go To War: Rogue One

rogue-one

***Huge spoilers below!

Why would the Death Star, the killing machine from Episode 4, A New Hope, have a fatal flaw? Fans for years have asked that question, as episode after episode of the Star Wars franchise came out. Some forgave, some let it go.

But real Star Wars fans never forget.

Rogue One, or Episode 3.9, tells the story of the rebels who stole the Death Star plans for Princess Leia. The team is led by Jyn Erso (Felicity Jones), who is not Rey’s mother, for all you conspiracy theorists out there. She is, though, the daughter of the man whom the Empire forced to build the Death Star, Galen Erso (Mads Mikkelsen). Abandoned as a child and raised by a mad-man extremist, Jyn has resolved not to care about the Empire, the Rebellion, or anyone except herself.

Until the Empire, the Rebellion, and people with issues like her pull her back in.

There are half a dozen main characters in Rogue One, and none of them get the time they deserve, even though the whole cast is likable and obviously could do more with the roles if given the chance. Jyn seems pretty much personality-less, and falls into the sole-lady-of-the-team cliche. She’s Rebellious™, and Abandoned™. Cassian Andor (Diego Luna) is Morally Ambiguous Hero™ and Courageous™ and Handsome™ and… that’s it. Chirrut Imwe (Donnie Yen) is Blind Wise Chinese Ninja Man™. Baze Malbus (Jiang Wen) is Snarky Wing Man™. Bodhi Rook (Riz Ahmed) is Quirky Space Nerd™. K-2SO (Alan Tudyk) is Sarcastic Robot™. There are some other characters too, but you probably won’t remember their names. Just remember there is an Evil Dude in White™, Farmer Scientist Dad™, and Metal Forrest Whittaker.

If Rogue One deserves any praise in the area of character, it is that Rogue One is a better Suicide Squad movie than the actual Suicide Squad movie and a better Magnificent Seven movie than the actual Magnificent Seven movie we got this year. But those are low standards.

The first part of the film moves surprisingly slow compared to its exciting finale. Being slow is one thing, but having scenes that could easily be cut to make time for character development is a problem. However, as the team gathers and completes mini-missions leading to the actual stealing of the Death Star, director Gareth Edwards continues the breathtaking world-building of the Star Wars universe. Several planets are displayed, populated by new people and creatures. It feels less modern than some parts of The Force Awakens and the purposely low-tech look of some scenes adds to the feeling of it being pulled out between the prequels and originals.

The film shines the brightest in the end. The decision to kill all the main characters threw me off when I went in. I respect it, and am glad they did it for creative reasons and to stay with the continuity of the series, but in a Marvel/DC world, I had forgotten that was actually an option. The finals shots of all the characters, even though I had forgotten half of their names, did get to me. If you didn’t/don’t get shivers up your spine with the ending Darth Vader and Princess Leia scenes, you’re not enough of a nerd.

I want to make this comparison when thinking about the merits of the new generation of Star Wars movies. The Force Awakens was criticized for having a plot that basically copied A New Hope, but it was almost universally agreed that it had wonderful characters that have even more potential. As a character over plot person, I want to spend more time in the timeline of The Force Awakens. Not so with Rogue One. Maybe that’s because we all knew we’ll never see these characters again. This is a stand alone film. In cinematic universes nowadays, the characters have to last multiple movies (think Tony Stark- this summer’s Spiderman: Homecoming will be his 7th film appearance in 9 years). With this standalone movie, though, there are very few boxes to check (although there is shameless nostalgia and beloved character cameos). In the end, Rogue One has all the strengths and weaknesses of a standalone film in a great franchise.

The two main characters- Jyn Erso and Cassian Andor don’t really have emotional arcs at all. The fact that they are the rebels, and we know their fates, is the emotional hook for the audience. That’s a hook based on nostalgia, and I would make the case that it’s worse than any The Force Awakens nostalgia. At least with that film, the characters had emotional arcs for the hook. This film’s whole reason for existing and for us caring about the end is because of A New Hope.

While watching the end of the movie, in the company of 13 Jr. High girls and a couple beside me furiously making out (because what sets a romantic mood better than everyone dying on a screen in front of you, and 13 people dying beside you, but for very different reasons), I was trying to make sense of what about Rogue One didn’t engage me like I wish it had. The movie had a darker tone, and I liked that. There were a couple of moments that seriously sent shivers up my spine. The movie is well-crafted technically and from a story perspective (again, well-woven plot). The final battle is good. Just swell. I really did enjoy a lot of the film.

I wish I could hyperbolize and say, “This is the best movie ever,” or “This is the worst movie ever.” It’s much easier to say that. Instead, I’m a bit at a loss for words. There isn’t a specific thing about it that I didn’t like, except the lack of deep characterization. It just didn’t speak to me and the things I like to see in films. I also like, but am not an avid fan, of Star Wars.

So if you want to see Rogue One, go forth and spend your money in happiness. If not, that’s okay, too. If you like it great, if not, great. It’s the season of spreading joy and cheer, and the last thing we need is to get in debates whether this movie is good or not.

We’ll save that argument for some 2017 movies.

-Madeleine D

Not a Revolution, but Maybe a Revelation: Moana

MOANA

What makes the perfect Disney movie?

Disney is probably the most mainstream of corporate media companies, and their films represent the times perfectly. So what do the great Disney films of each generation say about that generation? And what makes them great?

If it’s the animation, Moana is certainly at the forefront. The hair animation alone is breathtaking. The technical achievement is obvious from even the trailers.

So is it the music? Disney is known for its songs. Well, have no fear. While there might not be any Let It Go’s in the Moana soundtrack with Lin Manuel Miranda (disclaimer, I’m a huge Hamilton fan), the music hits the right beats and leaves a few memorable tunes in your head. (Although, side note- Moana not rapping in this movie, with music by Broadway’s rap king, is one of the biggest let-down of the years. And this is 2016. That’s a low bar.)

The plot? Moana does boast a fun adventure movie about a girl and a demigod teaming up to save the girl’s people from famine and destruction of their land. There are battles, heartfelt Life of Pi-esque moments on a boat, and an uplifting coming of age story. The finale is even really unique. Then again, other Disney movies have had great plots, too.

So those are staples of a Disney movie. But what makes it iconic? A classic? The originality?

Going into Moana, I had heard all sorts of things. Most were positive, and along the lines of, Moana is the most unique Disney princess movie I’ve seen. I’ve never seen the “earnest girl teams up with a scoundrel with a heart of gold” before.

flynn maui

kristoff aladdin

Moana looks so different from the other Disney princesses!

moana-2

Well, I guess unique is a strong word.

I really don’t want to rag on Moana. There are a lot of good things about her. My problem is when I see other reviews with titles like, “Moana is the anti-princess,” or “Moana is not like anything I’ve ever seen!” Disney cannot physically make the anti-princess. They have created our idea of what a princess is, and furthermore, they aren’t going to radically change what a princess is. Moana isn’t even really a princess-princess, but because they need to market her as a princess, they have a character in the movie call her a princess, to remind us that she is one, so go buy her Halloween costume already. To make an anti-princess would mean to not make a female character a princess, and heaven forbid we not have an animated leading lady that isn’t a princess.

So Moana isn’t an anti-princess. She fits into the Disney Princess spunk like a glove. She’s got the big eyes, flawless hair, and perfect physique (that’s right, nice try Disney, but I’m not going to congratulate you just for making her waist bigger than her neck. I don’t applaud fish for swimming.) She has an earnest heart, a sense of adventure, and courage.

Even though I don’t think Moana’s personality is drastically different from other princesses, she is undeniably likable. She’s more flawed than just being clumsy like Anna from Frozen, and she’s more three-dimensional than Elsa. She has a relationship with her family (both parents live! yeah!) and we get to see her do something no other Disney princess has ever done- actually rule her kingdom and interact with her subjects. That’s right, being in a leadership position actually requires something out of you. Who knew?

Moana is voiced by newcomer Auli’i Cravalho, who deserves all the credit for making Moana likable and complex. Moana’s coming of age story is made powerful by Cravalho’s emotions, and I hope she does a lot more work in the future.

Now we can’t have a movie without a macho dude character to bring in the boy audience. We get that macho dude in Maui, a shapeshifting demigod, voiced by the closest thing we have to a real demigod on earth- Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson. Maui, like Moana, isn’t a character we haven’t seen before, but Johnson brings warmth to the role, and while I hope one day I can see a movie with the roles reversed, Johnson and Cravalho do a great job with their chemistry and banter.

Moana is a fun movie. It will scratch a Disney itch. It would even be fair to call it a great movie. But I would hesitate to say it is groundbreaking. It is a step in the right direction though, and I think it has the Frozen-effect. With Frozen (in my humble opinion), so many people fell in love with what the movie was supposed to be, what it stood for, rather than the actual film. I think Moana is much better than Frozen, even though they both stand for the same ideal. I think one day there will be a movie that will achieve what a lot of people are looking for- a thoroughly modern, feminist, game-changing fairy tale. So no, Moana is not a revolution, but it is a revelation.

One last note- I went to see this with my sister and a friend. As the movie closed, I looked over and saw that my friend was teary-eyed. She told me it was because Moana was her. No, my friend isn’t a pacific islander, nor does she really have much else in common with Moana, although they both have long, crazy hair. But Moana has that adventurous spirit, that drive, that sense of purpose that my friend has and felt she had never seen on screen in a relatable way. Moana was the Disney Princess she had been waiting for.

So, while Moana is not the Disney Princess I’ve been waiting for, she may be the one you’re waiting for, and that’s awesome. She’s accompanied by a great movie.That is something Disney can pat themselves on the back for.

Okay, okay, that’s enough, Disney. Get back to work. You’re not out of the woods yet.

-Madeleine D

 

Magic is Not Enough: Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them

fantastic-beasts

I remember fondly my first Harry Potter experience. I was in third grade, and I picked up Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone because I was bored and didn’t have a book to read during independent reading time. Within two pages I was hooked. My dad started reading them at the same time, so we raced to finish the series. I beat him (sorry, dad, for hiding your books) and I earned the right to watch the movies. My favorite characters were Sirius Black and Hermione Granger.

I think a lot of people have that feeling of nostalgia, excitement, and glee when they hear the words “Harry Potter.” Even the words “J.K Rowling” can whip up a firestorm of emotions for die-hard Harry Potter fans.

But this isn’t a Harry Potter movie. This is a movie about a young Magizoologist named Newt Scamander, and his adventures in the American magic world. Can he wiggle his way into our hearts the same way The Boy Who Lived did?

The answer is no.

The weakest part of Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them are the characters. Now I know, these characters are going to be around for four more movies. But even in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone, the first movie/book, you already knew various things about each character. Harry was brave, rash, and kind, and curious. Hermione was not just smart but courageous, stuck-up, and loyal. Ron was funny, insecure, and refreshingly average. But these characters? I only know one or two trait for each. Newt (Eddie Redmayne) loves animals, and has hair that has more personality than he does. Tina (Katherine Waterston) is like Hermione… but more unappreciated? Queenie (Alison Sudol) is blonde. Jacob (Dan Fogler) is overweight. The orphanage lady (a wasted Samantha Morton) is secretly (and stereotypically) cruel.

That’s it. Those are all the endearing characteristics of the characters (some of whom) I have to spend four more movies with. Oh, and none of these characters develop. In fact, there is really no message or moral at all to the story, beside general goodness and please keep your animals in your cages. There is a background political message about fear and tolerance, but it doesn’t get the screen time it deserves and the message is what we’ve seen from the Harry Potter series.

The relationships don’t build at all- Newt takes to Jacob because he’s.. Dumb? And nice? And bakes stuff? And Queenie falls in love with Jacob because he’s dumb? And nice? And bakes stuff? And Tina and Newt become good pals because after Tina tries to arrest them he realizes she is actually nice? And pretty? And uses magic to bake stuff?

Those are too many questions to have for a two hour movie that has a middle section that feels like four. The film doesn’t feel long because there are a lot of good scenes, it feels long because all the long scenes are spent on dumb scenes. There is not a single full scene explaining Credence’s (Ezra Millers) backstory and connection to Graves (Colin Farrell), but there sure is one of Eddie Redmayne trying to seduce a Fantastic Beast and at that point I’m asking, Where do I find the exit?

If these characters are still appealing to you, though, there is hope. The plot is surprisingly well constructed, and I applaud J.K Rowling for taking to screenwriting so well. It isn’t easy to jump mediums. The different storylines weave together by the end to a finale I could enjoy, but still felt unsatisfied with because I never got to understand these characters. Only feeling superficial empathy for them, I didn’t feel any urgency with what was supposed to be dramatically high stakes.

One thing to note about Fantastic Beasts is that it has some darker elements that resemble the last few Harry Potter movies. Heads up for parents- young children might get scared at several parts. The magic here isn’t always light, with references to various subjects, including crazy religious fanatics, Salem witch hunts, child abuse, mental illness, and a magical form of the death penalty.

At first I was really excited that the film was going to take a dark turn. The last Harry Potter movies/books were able to take a darker tone and enhance the story. An entire quintet of dark magic movies sounded awesome. Then Fantastic Beasts let me down, because simply having those elements doesn’t make the film any more mature or thoughtful. To make those dark subjects work, you have to do an arc that explores the subject and gives it the weight and levity it deserves. Fantastic Beasts just throws them in there, making the film even more crowded and shallow.

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them looks great on paper. There are inventive things on display here. But the whole film is weighed down with a feeling of lifelessness that it can’t escape. One of the film’s biggest selling points was its setting in the American Wizarding World. When I saw it, though, I never got the feeling of being in America. I got the impression it was London, trying to replicate America, by just adding American accents and the Statue of Liberty and a bald eagle. The sense of greater world-building that came from the Harry Potter movies, built from a firm novel foundation, is lost here. Fantastic Beasts is obsessed with trying to be magical and whimsy and fun, but by trying too hard, it loses it completely.

In the end, magic is not enough to make Fantastic Beasts a good film. Sure, it may be fun sometimes. If you love Harry Potter and understand its mythology deeply, I can understand how wonderful the potential for Fantastic Beasts is, and I wish I had that same enthusiasm. For someone who enjoyed Harry Potter in a more casual way, the experience of watching Fantastic Beasts was kind of like going to a party where you don’t know anyone. Go ahead and dance, but it’s nowhere near as fun as being with friends, or in this case, characters you care about.

-Madeleine D

Quiet People Doing Extraordinary Things: Loving

loving

The climactic scene of Loving is divided between two locations. One is the Supreme Court, where the future of interracial marriage lies in the landmark case of Virginia vs Loving. The second location is a farm, where Mildred Loving, a black woman, watches her husband, Richard Loving, a white man, play with their two children in the yard. She gets a call from their lawyers. They won. Mildred nods, hangs up, and smiles at her husband. He nods, and goes back to playing with the kids.

And that’s all folks. They win. Interracial marriage is legal in the United States. The Loving family can continue their daily lives, just with less fear.

If that climax sounds less-than-exciting to you, keep in mind before you see Loving that that is how the whole movie plays. It is an unbelievably calm, restrained, and polite film. Mildred (Ruth Negga) and Richard Loving (Joel Edgerton) never get angry with each other or their circumstances. They go through their entire ordeal with humility and quiet conviction. Director Jeff Nichols refuses to craft an Oscar drama. He creates one that reflects the nature of the Lovings themselves. Richard Loving states in the film, “Tell the judge I love my wife.” He doesn’t want to go to court. He doesn’t want to make a statement. He just loves his wife. Loving doesn’t make itself into a statement. It presents itself as just a slice of life, albeit with extraordinary implications.

There is a difference between restraint and boring though, and how Loving walks that line is still up for debate. I think one of the year’s best examples of restraint is this Fall’s Southside With You, about Barack and Michelle Obama’s first date. That was a film that could have easily gone for Oscar bait with huge speeches, big statements on politics and the state of America today, and unrealistically canny foreshadowing. Yet Southside With You chooses to serve its story rather than its makers.

So what does that make Loving? I think it depends. I personally don’t think this story is a good fit for a movie. It is certainly important, and everyone should know about the Lovings. But you could cover all the material given here with a podcast, a Wikipedia page read, or even the trailer for this film. There is very little meat here.

The lack of meat in the film is replaced with elements that may be very appealing to some. It’s an actor’s film through and through, with Ruth Negga and Joel Edgerton giving Oscar-worthy performances. They don’t play particularly interesting people, but they play them with an admirable amount of naturalness.

Honestly though, there isn’t much else. The film has what we’ve come to expect- nice cinematography, a serving score, a feel of deep authenticity in its historical setting. But if you know the story, and don’t care to watch intense faces for two hours, Loving isn’t going to be your movie. Truthfully, it wasn’t mine. I appreciate the film for what it is, and for not falling into all the traps it could have. I just wished I had walked out of the theater, pumping my fist in the air, yelling “Yes! They did it!”

The film didn’t need to be cliched or loud to do that. It just needed to make sure the stakes were clear and to show the real injustices the Lovings (and couples like them) faced. But, when the worst punishment shown in the film is them being jailed for a few nights, I didn’t get the feeling of, “This is an unjust problem that needs to be solved right away.” I never felt anxious for them or their situation.

The film does a wonderful job of portraying who the Lovings were. But then it takes it a step too far and becomes the Lovings. It reminds me why not a lot of movies are made about introverts. It doesn’t matter how powerful those closeups of intense expressions are. It doesn’t matter how wonderful they are as role models, with Mildred Loving’s inner strength and determination and Richard Loving’s quiet conviction. Quiet people simply do not have the onscreen charisma we are used to to entertain us. And I say this all as an introvert. A movie about me would not be entertaining in the least.

So, do make movies about important people, introverted or not. But do not make an introverted movie if it doesn’t have more to say. Loving is sensitive and sweet, but isn’t able to transfer the love on screen to the audience.

-Madeleine D

Monsters and Magic and Nothing We Were Ever Trained For: Doctor Strange

doctor-strange

Happy Thanksgiving! This Thanksgiving, I hope you will spend time appreciating your friends and family, eating delicious food, and supporting your local indie films, like this one.

There are some (cough, Alejandro Iñárritu, cough) who say we should write off the entire comic book/superhero genre. These people say the genre is ruining our humanity, is devoid of meaning, supports right-wing ideology, and is “cultural genocide.”

I am firmly against that idea. Why not take the interesting conventions of the genre, which are the equivalent of Greek mythology for modern audiences, and use them in creative ways? The wonderful thing about the comic book genre is that it has a rich history of being used to express radical ideas throughout history. There are a multitude of ways that genre staples can be twisted and adapted to fit thousands of stories. To say an entire genre cannot be elevated isn’t the sentiment of a genius filmmaker, it’s pretentious and lazy and simply a way to ignore the interesting things that have been, and are being, done with a genre.

So that raises the question of Doctor Strange, the newest comic book superhero movie to grace the silver screen, and the 14th movie to join the MCU. How is it advancing the genre?

First off, it’s not through the story. Not that the story of a rich, successful, egotistical jerk who loses something important to him and discovers his calling as a superhero isn’t interesting. It’s just been done before. You may be able to come up with a few examples. I guess we can’t blame the filmmakers for that, though. I mean, what isn’t appealing about a white man going to an East Asian city that he doesn’t respect or know anything about, where he almost instantly masters a magical art that is special to the area, through a white teacher who has known it longer than him, but he still surpasses the teacher because.. Chosen One?

It’s probably not through the characters either. They’ve all been done before. You know the Exasperated, Long Suffering Girlfriend™. You know the equally Exasperated Black Friend™. You know the Wise Old Master™. You know the Student-Turned-To-The-Dark-Side™. You even know the Cranky Librarian™. You might even know the locations! Generic London Street™. Hospital That Doesn’t Follow Protocol™. Special Dojo in Mountains™. Space Thrown in a Time Loop.

Okay, maybe that last one is different.

However, maybe it’s through the special effects. Cities with streets that are filled with cities are folding into themselves as people run around on the folding cities within more cities in portals. Whew. It’s quite a ride. Trippy, and a little dizzying, but fun. It’s Inception on steroids.

But wait- we can’t just say the only thing this movie brings to the table are the special effects. If that is all there is to add to the genre, then maybe the doubters are right.

Except- there is a little more meat on this bone that it may be given credit for. So let’s dig in deeper.

Doctor Strange opens with Stephen Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch) a stuck up, Beyonce-savvy, “oh come on, we barely dated,” quippy one-liners, totally 100% apple-pie American doctor with occasionally a British accent that wants to be let loose. He’s so famous he can handpick his patients based on whose case is more severe and who he could use to win more awards. He drives a fancy car, uses a fancy phone, and then gets in a horrific car wreck.

No longer able to use his hands to do his work, Strange loses everything. He learns about a mystical place that is known to heal people. He travels to Kamar-Taj and meets the Ancient One (Tilda Swinton) who begins to reveal to him the secret art of magic and alternate dimensions. The Avengers may be fighting to save the earth, we’re fighting to save our universe, she tells him. A little more than he signed up for. But hey, he’s got nothing to lose.

One of the best things about Doctor Strange is its performances. I think bringing talented actors to the comic-book genre is a great way to not only elevate the movie, but make sure the arcs of the characters are portrayed correctly and with often more depth then the script may provide. Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy was great because of Christopher Nolan, but would it have been the same if he had cast a lower-grade genre actor instead of Christian Bale? Actors who treat their material seriously will always have my respect, and this cast earned my respect. Rachel McAdams, Tilda Swinton, Benedict Wong, and especially Chiwetel Ejiofor take their roles that aren’t all that new or original, and make them feel very real and genuine. And Benedict Cumberbatch makes an empathetic Strange who, while he may not have the rough, thoroughly dislikable edges Tony Stark does, makes you really feel like he’s at the end of his rope. That emotional punch makes the film work.

The other star of the movie- magic- is good and bad. The bad is that if you want to really understand the magic of the movie, too bad for you. Watching the movie, I never understood how someone got from hand waving to opening a portal. That is never explained. I can’t imagine what it feels like to create magic with your hands, because the movie never shows me how it feels. The Ancient One gives a monologue about other worlds, dimensions, and magic, but the actual physicality of the magic is never revealed. And that’s a shame, because now would be a good time, MCU, to decide if you’re going to stick with your pseudo-intellectualism science, or try and really define what is science and what is magic in your world.

The creators (including veteran horror director Scott Derrickson) seem to have chosen the latter. While that’s a bummer, the special effects are undeniably dazzling. Their innovation is what makes them stand out because good special effects are a given these days. But using them to their full potential is what this movie does. I didn’t see it in Imax or 3D, but if you’re into that, I would think this would be a good film to spend the extra money on.

What is so interesting about Doctor Strange is how detached it seems from the rest of the MCU. The Avengers are mentioned once. Strange lives in New York City, but nothing gets name dropped. The film’s third act is very different from the third acts of other superhero movies. Interestingly enough, that is where a lot of its strengths lie. It’s a great stand-alone film, which is a nice relief for those who don’t geek out over remembering facts from 13 other movies. The world is familiar, but also more fantastical than the normal MCU World.

The quote I used for the title of this review isn’t from Doctor Strange. It’s from The Avengers, in a scene between Scarlett Johansson’s Black Widow and Jeremy Renner’s Hawkeye. The two characters are agents. Very skilled agents, but still, just human. They’re thrust into a world with larger-than-life superheroes and monsters that they’ve never seen before. Doctor Strange is less about Doctor Strange being thrust into a new world as it is the audience being thrown not just a new section of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but into a new world created by breathtaking special effects, inhabited by actors who make it feel real. Sure, as audience members, we’re expecting some of the familiar stuff. But overall, there are elements that feel very new.

Maybe we weren’t trained for it, and maybe it’s a little off-putting sometimes, but it sure is something exciting.

-Madeleine D

Everything You Could Possibly Want to Know About The Marvel Cinematic Universe

marvel_cinematic_universe_logo

Hello readers!

In honor of Dr. Strange coming out this week, I’m here to lay out for you what you should expect in 13 of my reviews in the next 4 years. That’s right, I’m talking about The Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU), that, whether you love it or hate it, is defining this movie-going generation and changing Hollywood forever.

Marvel has 13 movies planned through 2020 for Phase 3 of the MCU. I’m going to go through each one of them and discuss what we know, should expect, and hope for. As a full disclaimer, while I have done my research for these movies, I’m not a comic book reader. If you want to know more of those origins, along with other information about these movies, check out this website: http://www.denofgeek.com/us/movies/marvel/237462/full-marvel-movie-release-calendar

Dr. Strange- November 4th, 2016

Dr. Strange will star Benedict Cumberbatch as the title character, along with Tilda Swinton, Rachel McAdams, Chiwetel Ejiofor, and Mads Mikkelsen. The film is about Stephen Strange, a brilliant surgeon who, after a car accident, can no longer use his hands. When he meets The Ancient One, he learns about the world of magic.

Marvel has been setting up this movie since Dr. Strange’s first name-drop in Captain America: The Winter Soldier. The cosmic world was set up in Guardians of the Galaxy, and inter-dimensional space was shown in Ant-Man. The idea of magic in the MCU has often been explained with mumbo-jumbo science. In fact, in Thor, Thor explains that “magic is just science we don’t understand yet.” Scarlet Witch, though, has some kind of telekinesis powers that resembles magic. We’ll see how they use magic in a more realistic comic-book world.

The film is also already inciting controversy. In the comics, The Ancient One is a Tibetan man. In the film he will be played by Tilda Swinton, who is neither Tibetan nor a man. Marvel has blamed this on the fact that they need China as a box-office source, and China has a rough relationship with Tibet. I think it’s interesting, though, that audiences call for diversity, yet even though this film race-bends and gender-bends a character, audiences only want progression on their own terms.

A lot of people are worried that since this film is so out-of-the-box, it could be a big misstep. But if Marvel is able to make a movie like Ant-Man work, I’m sure a movie about a white man with superpowers, a fellow co-worker as his girlfriend, a black friend, and a face-painted villain is not going to be much of a problem. In fact, it sounds pretty familiar, don’t you think?

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2- May 5th, 2017

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 is the sequel to the 2014 mega-hit. The film is said to go more in depth on Peter Quill’s relationship with his father. Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista, and the voices of Bradley Cooper and Vin Diesel return, along with the addition of Kurt Russell to the cast.

I feel like I’m one of only about four people on the planet who didn’t love the first movie. But this movie is important, because supposedly it will feature even more Thanos (the big, ultimate bad guy of the MCU) and explore more of the space aspect of the MCU, where the Avengers: Infinity War movies will take place. The first one was a mega-hit, so I’m sure this one won’t be a disappointment in that regard.

Spider-Man: Homecoming – July 7th, 2017

Spider-Man: Homecoming is also going to be an important movie. Sure, it sounds like a John Hughes prom movie, even more so considering it’s a surprisingly young cast, that it takes place in high-school, and is a part of the family-friendly Disney/Marvel family. But this new reincarnation of Spider-Man is important from a business perspective. It is the first joint-movie production of Sony and Marvel. Spider-Man was originally a Marvel property, and a comic book property, but after they went bankrupt in the early 2000’s, they sold the rights to Sony. That’s why we have the original Spider-Man trilogy with Tobey Maguire and the reboot, The Amazing Spider-Man with Andrew Garfield as the title character. But Sony is going downhill, and needs to make the character great again. They now are sharing the character with Marvel. So now Spider-Man is in the MCU, but the character/movie is still Sony, and Marvel is mostly just in charge of the character creatively. This partnership is one of the first of its kind, and it will be interesting to see how it will turn out. One thing that will be important to note is how much the film will be affected by the end of Captain America: Civil War. Will Tony Stark be tortured? Will the gang still be separated? Does Peter Parker have PTSD or a conflict of conscience about his choices? What does it mean for a minor to be a vigilante?

Spider-Man: Homecoming’s cast includes Tom Holland (reprising the role after his cameo debut in Captain America: Civil War), Robert Downey Jr returning as Iron Man, Michael Keaton (as probably villain Vulture, but still unconfirmed), former Disney star Zendaya as a new character named Michelle (although there is still some mystery as to whether that is true), and Marisa Tomei returning as Aunt May.

We don’t have a lot of information on the film yet, but I’d like to point out some things about the cast. First is that everyone is playing almost the correct age, which is nice for a change. There is a strong possibility that Zendaya is playing Mary Jane or Gwen Stacy, which is cool. Having a black actress, along with some more diverse casting choices, will hopefully be more reflective of New York today. Having Michael Keaton go back to superhero movies, especially after Birdman, a movie that had a disdainful message towards comic-book movies, seems like an interesting (and slightly desperate) choice. Then we have RDJ, who showed a mentor/father figure side of Tony Stark in Civil War in his interactions with Spider-Man. I assume this will continue in this film.

Hopefully this film will use the positive reception of Holland’s portrayal of the character to its advantage and be a different film for the MCU. Guardians of the Galaxy was a space opera, Captain America: The Winter Soldier was a political thriller, maybe Spider-Man: Homecoming can be a mature coming of age story. Being a smart movie could also solve Michael Keaton’s life-long problem of artistry vs. getting work.

Thor: Ragnarok- November 3rd, 2017

Thor: Ragnarok (Ragnarok basically means apocalypse) is the third and last movie in the Thor trilogy. This movie will bring back Chris Hemsworth as Thor, Tom Hiddleston as Loki, and Jaimie Alexander as Lady Sif, along with Idris Elba as Heimdall and Anthony Hopkins as Odin. New to the cast is Mark Ruffalo as fellow Avenger Bruce Banner/Hulk, Cate Blanchett as villainess Hela, Karl Urban as Skruge, Tessa Thompson as Valkyrie, and Jeff Goldblum as Grandmaster. The film has been described as “a cosmic buddy road trip.”

I’m not gonna lie, this is my most anticipated movie of 2017. Why a Thor movie? Because Hulk, that’s why. Hulk, and Cate Blanchett as a supervillainess. And a cosmic buddy road trip. And Jeff Goldblum. That sounds like the perfect pitch to me. This movie will probably set up Infinity War the most, with it being in space and also being about the apocalypse. Yet Mark Ruffalo has said it will be basically a comedy, particularly with director Taika Waiti (What We Do in the Shadows, Hunt for the Wilderpeople). So with the Shakespearean language, space, buddy-comedy, and the end of the world, this might be the greatest Marvel movie yet. If not, at least it will be the best Thor movie.

Black Panther- February 16th, 2018

Black Panther is going to be one of the biggest movies of 2018. Not just one of the biggest, but one of the most important. Directed by Ryan Coogler (Fruitvale Station and Creed) the film is set to star Chadwick Boseman returning as Black Panther/King T’Challa, along with Lupita Nyong’o, Michael B. Jordan, and Andy Serkis. The movie is said to have a 90% black cast, with promise of plenty more prestigious actors to join.

Black Panther will be about King T’Challa, who after his introduction in Captain America: Civil War, is taking over as King of Wakanda for his late father, T’Chaka. Wakanda is a fictional African Country. It is technologically advanced. T’Challa is a genius, higher I.Q than Tony Stark and far richer. His country is rich in vibranium, the metal to make Captain America’s shield. Black Panther has been described as “African Batman”; his intellect and abilities make him a deadly foe, and his neutrality makes him a powerful political player.

This will be the first movie out of all the MCU movies to have a person of color in the lead title (the first movie not starring a white man, after 17 movies). To prove this point even further, Marvel is making sure to release the movie during Black History month, so you won’t forget it’s for black audiences.

This poses a problem to me personally. If Marvel regularly released movies in February, it wouldn’t be a big deal. But they never do. And February isn’t a great movie-releasing season. This, and the fact it’s going to be released during Black History month, makes me feel like Marvel doesn’t have a lot of faith in the movie. That’s ridiculous. It has a critically acclaimed director and cast, and an amazing concept with a great superhero. I just hope they won’t focus too much on making it for black audiences only. It should be a movie for everyone. Marvel should not use this as a way to say, “Here’s your diversity movie. Stop complaining.” Think about it. If this movie is a huge success, this could be a big game-changer for Hollywood at large.

Avengers: Infinity War – May 4th, 2018

Originally, the two Avengers films on this list were supposed to be a two-parter called Avengers: Infinity War. However, after Comic Con 2016 the news broke they were going to be separate (but still very interconnected) films. I personally am glad they are splitting the films up. Movies like Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part 1 & 2 and Twilight: Breaking Dawn part 1 & 2 make a lot of money, but end up with a whole slew of issues from a fan and critic perspective. It also makes it even harder for casual fans to keep up, and with a franchise like the MCU, you want to make it as easy as possible for viewers.

I think this movie, despite not being the same movie as the next Avengers film, will be very much a precursor to the bigger conflict in Avengers: Untitled. This movie will be about assembling the gang, and collecting things. Thanos, the big bad guys of the MCU, is trying to collect the six Infinity Stones (the ones that fit onto his gauntlet, introduced at the end of Avengers: Age of Ultron). So far we have three, and three more are left to find. Thanos will be trying to find those, and the Avengers will be assembling the whole team to fight him. I expect some kind of scene between Captain America and Iron Man that reunites them, and then they will go and find the rest of the team. They’ll get Black Panther, Dr. Strange, Black Widow, War Machine, Scarlet Witch, Vision, Falcon, Thor, Hulk, Ant Man, Wasp, The Guardians of the Galaxy, and possibly Captain Marvel. I’m expecting big reunions if they haven’t already happened in the other movies, and a convoluted plot about finding the stones, ending with a big fight that will probably end poorly for the original Avengers. Why? I’ll explain later.

What’s interesting about this is that by the time this film comes out, Justice League Part 1 will have already come out. That’s a 2-part superhero crossover film, like this one was supposed to be. Is Marvel feeling the DC heat? DC has a lot less fan alliance after Batman v. Superman than Marvel does (Let’s see how Wonder Woman turns out), and so it may be unfair to judge how the two will be received. But it will be important to see how the Justice League two-parter will be structured in comparison to the two closely-related Avengers movies.

Ant-Man and The Wasp- July 6th, 2018

It’s about damn time.

After Hope van Dyne whispered those words in the after-credit scene of 2015’s Ant-Man, a legion of comic-book fans and moviegoers cried out for the time The Wasp would finally be able to don the suit and be the superheroine we deserve. Because Captain Marvel has been pushed back to 2019, Ant-Man and The Wasp will be the first movie with a leading lady from Marvel. They are also the first super-couple, as shown by the end of Ant-Man. Paul Rudd and Evangeline Lilly will return in the title roles, along with Michael Douglas as Hank Pym. It will be directed once again by Peyton Reed, the replacement for Edgar Wright after the infamous fall-out between Wright and the studio.

Not much else is known about the film, but let’s hope it looks less like Iron Man this time and more like its own original story. Or it could continue in the Iron Man footsteps and be about Ant-Man having a midlife crisis and Louis (brilliant Michael Pena) taking up the suit, which I would actually be okay with.

Captain Marvel- March 8th, 2019

Protip- don’t go on the internet for all of March 2019 and a few months afterward looking for Captain Marvel stuff, unless you want to walk into a proverbial warzone. Yes, the internet has a terrible relationship with lady superheroes. Everything they do is under impossible scrutiny, with loose definitions of feminism thrown everywhere, mixed with anger, bitterness, and of course, bad grammar.

But besides that issue, this movie will determine a lot about Marvel and their ability to please a prickly fan base, and also make their first lady-led movie, this movie also has some acute similarities to the Black Panther movie. Captain Marvel is being released on International Women’s day, and if that doesn’t scream “Shut up female fans, here’s your movie, leave us alone but still give us money,” I don’t know what does.

Meanwhile, while we don’t know much about the film, we do know our casting. 2016 Best Actress winner Brie Larson will be playing Carol Danvers, a military pilot who gets cosmic powers. She’s more powerful than Wonder Woman, and in the comics has been a member of the Avengers lineup for years.

Basically, this movie might be a ticking bomb, but if done well, could change lots of things for the better. I hope it is a great movie for everyone, a new flavor for the MCU, and Captain Marvel will be an amazing, unique superhero for people to look up to.

Avengers: (Untitled)- May 3rd, 2019

Or: Everyone You Love Will Probably Die: The Movie.

Now that the gang is back together, and have had their butts kicked, I think the old Avengers team will retire and pass the reins to the newer members of the team, and defeat Thanos once and for all. If everyone is not assembled in the first movie, expect some more in this movie. It is rumored that up to 67 characters could appear in this movie. This could either be a bloated disaster, or handled well. I’m not sure yet how it will turn out, but I do have faith in the Russos, who helmed Captain America: Civil War, which also had a huge cast. But 67? This movie really should be called Glorified Cameos: Because Even Critically Acclaimed Actors Need Money.

The only other thing we know about this film is that it will be shot completely on an Imax camera.

Once this film is over, I’m worried about what kind of state the MCU will be in for Phase 3. Thanos is the MCU version of a god. What bigger villain is there to fight than a god? What villains are left after something so big? Haven’t we seen it all by then?

Inhumans- July 12th, 2019

I feel like I’m in the minority here, but I feel like the Marvel Netflix (Daredevil, Jessica Jones, and Luke Cage) and ABC shows (Agents of Shield) should not mix with the movies. They are drastically different in tone, not as many people have seen the shows as the movies, and it would mess with the timeline and continuity like crazy. Plus, it is hard to get big talent to go to TV. An Inhumans movie will basically be like the show Agents of Shield, the lowest-ranking MCU TV show, who are already doing Inhumans. There’s a very small chance this movie will actually come to fruition, though, considering the behind-the-scenes drama at Marvel.

Here’s the short version. Before Captain America: Civil War came out, so late 2015, Kevin Feige, the head honcho of the Marvel movie division, decided he wanted to stop reporting to Isaac Perlmutter, the CEO of Marvel. Fiege wanted to instead report straight to Disney CEO Alan Horn, giving Fiege more power. So the company split. Now Perlmutter is in charge of the comic books and TV shows, while Fiege is in charge of the movies, and Horn is still owner of both. Making an Inhumans movie is directly tied to the comic books and tv shows, which means Perlmutter and Fiege would have to work together. People don’t generally split up just so that they can work together more. Besides, an Inhumans movie would be very X-Men-y, and while we might see what a Marvel-made X-Men movie might look like, it could also just be a huge retread.

TBA:

May 1st, 2020

Kevin Feige, head of Marvel movie studios, has said he and the company are “emotionally and creatively committed to a Black Widow movie.” Now I’m not holding my breath, because he has said these kind of things before, but there is still always hope.

It would be interesting where they would take a Black Widow movie. To do her origin story, as interesting as it is, would only be a backtrack for the Cinematic Universe. Her doing her own solo mission might be interesting as well, but this is after Infinity War, where everyone might die or retire.

I personally think it is a little too late for this character. While Scarlett Johansson has done a phenomenal job with the character, and has shown in films like Lucy she can hold an action film by herself, I just don’t think it is the best move. Just keep having her be a co-lead in various movies. Let this go to someone else, and let the ghost of Black Widow be a cautionary tale.

July 10th, 2020

(Quiet chanting) She-Hulk, She-Hulk, She-Hulk, She-Hulk

November 6th, 2020

I can imagine a Guardians of the Galaxy 3, Dr. Strange 2, Ant-Man 3, or Captain Marvel 2. Or Iron Man 4-ever.

So there you have it. 13 movies in 4 years (14 if you count Civil War). Can this even be done? Are you tired of the superhero genre? And remember, this is from only one studio. Don’t forget about Fox with X-Men, Warner Bros with DC, and Sony, along with all sorts of indies, animation, and spoofs that will follow. Can the genre change at all? With these movies in the forefront of the genre, I think how they progress will say a lot about superhero movies and Hollywood at large. No matter your opinion on them, they are important for any serious movie-goer and pop culture guru to know about.

-Madeleine D

Meh: The Magnificent Seven

The Magnificent Seven: the movie you kinda sorta knew was coming out, but really only went when you saw it had your favorite actors in it. In honor of its name, here are the seven things you need to know about this newest Western.

the-magnificent-seven-2016
(l to r) Byung-hun Lee, Manuel Garcia-Rulfo, Ethan Hawke, Denzel Washington, Chris Pratt, Vincent D’Onofrio and Martin Sensmeier in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures and Columbia Pictures’ THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN.
  1. Story

This is a remake of the 1960 The Magnificent Seven, which in turn is a remake of Akira Kurosawa’s epic The Seven Samurai. I have not seen the original Magnificent Seven (I know, I know, sorry). However, the movie doesn’t stray far from that story.

The film starts with Bartholomew Bogue (Peter Sarsgaard), a baddy capitalist who burns down a church and kills a handful of men in the opening scene. Emma Cullen (Haley Bennett), the wife of a man who is killed, enlists Sam Chisolm (Denzel Washington, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUVqTzvyudQ) and Josh Faraway (Chris Pratt) to gather a team of heroes who can stop Bogue.

  1. Talent

Denzel Washington can do no wrong. The trailer for the upcoming film Fences (based on the play of the same title that Washington will be directing and starring in) played before this film, and reminded me of that fact. His Sam Chisolm is not necessarily a new type of hero, but is still a stoic one we can appreciate.

Chris Pratt plays Chris Pratt. I was hoping when he became a superstar, he would reveal a talent for playing interesting characters. Instead, he revealed that he has more abs than he does diverse roles. He still has time to show his acting chops, but right now he seems more than content to keep his blockbuster leading man image. If only that leading man was a little more interesting.

Ethan Hawke rivals Denzel Washington on the likeability factor here. He plays Goodnight Robicheaux (how can you lose with a name like that?) with finesse and passion. He makes the PTSD and guilt Goodnight feels real and adds some interest to an overdone story.

I wish I could say much about the rest of the cast. Haley Bennett does her best, but her job is mostly to be the 7th member of the party stand-in until the boys can all get there. Her role is similar to Hailee Steinfeld’s from 2010’s True Grit, and it isn’t near as interesting. And the other guys? Well, try to remember their names after you’ve left the theater.

  1. Diversity

This film caught a lot of people’s eye by showing off its diversity. Directed by Antoine Fuqua (Training Day), starring Denzel Washington, with three other men of color in the leading roles. And I applaud that diversity. That said, the film tries to have its cake and eat it, too. It could be said that the story takes place in an alternative universe where all these types of men could get along in the Wild West (which, historically, they were all definitely present in). But then it doesn’t make sense when characters say racist things to each other. But if it had taken place in the real Wild West, these men almost definitely wouldn’t have gotten along so easily.

As for the characters themselves, it’s cool that the lesser-known actors of color get a time to shine in complex, original roles. As long as you forget about the stereotypes, like the Indian who eats the raw hearts of animals, or the Asian guy who is basically a quiet but deadly ninja, or the Mexican who… Well, he doesn’t really do anything. Or the fact that the confederate soldier and the black man get along just dandy.  Or that the only woman is practically prostituted by the men around her and her role is nudged out of the film quickly to make way for the heroes. But yeah progress! Now earn that title, movie.

  1. Style

A big part of Westerns is the distinct style. You need a bar scene, a horse scene, a sitting around the campfire scene. All of these elements are here. If those scenes are your jam, especially when they are stripped of soul and heart, then you’ll be happy.

The whole film is obsessed with style. I didn’t keep count, but I feel like fifty would be a modest number for the number of times the camera panned from Denzel Washington’s hand to gun to face to a slow motion walk. The violence might be gory, but these men are still stars, dang it! They’re the western Avengers, and everyone knows you can’t fight outlaws without looking hot.

But with the over-stylization comes some positives.  The score and cinematography are gorgeous. The soundtrack livens up formulaic scenes and adds intensity to scenes where you wouldn’t otherwise feel the emotion. The cinematography has the same effect.

  1. Making a Western

It’s difficult to change the Western formula, save for location change (Star Wars is an example- a Western in space). It is admittedly not one of my favorite genres for this reason. The Magnificent Seven doesn’t do a whole lot for changing the modern Western, save for its casting. However, there is no shame in making a solid genre film. The thing that struck me throughout the movie was the lack of a message. There is some religious talk. People muse over revenge and righteousness. But in the end, if the villain is just a mean capitalist (because heaven forbid we have villains that aren’t aliens, nazis, or rich people) and the only way to get rid of him is to brutally murder his army of men and destroy a town, so what? The movie doesn’t have much of a message. That’s the biggest crime of them all.

  1.  Locations

While the town the film is set in is your generic Western town, the fact that the film was shot on location makes a big difference. The setting feels real and lived in. The gorgeous natural beauty of New Mexico, Louisiana, and Arizona, the main places they shot, add to the aesthetic of the film. After seeing a lot of films that were shot on sound stages or with CGI, the authenticity of The Magnificent Seven is appreciated.

  1. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Sorry, I got nothing. See how hard it is to have 7 focal points? That’s what the movie suffers from.

The Magnificent Seven comes down to this: If this isn’t your type of film, it won’t be very appealing. If it’s your kind of film, you will probably enjoy it, though I doubt it will be high on your list of favorites. A remake that doesn’t have a new message, or even a solid one at all, doesn’t seem like a remake worthy of anyone’s time. There is only so much enjoyment you can get out of actors running around in nice locations to a cool score before the emptiness of it appears

-Madeleine D

The Fine Line Between Imaginative and Ridiculous: Miss Peregrine’s Home For Peculiar Children

Warning: Light spoilers ahead.

miss-peregrine

Man, movie grandpas are amazing.

You know if you have a movie grandpa, you’re going on an adventure. He’ll read you a book when you’re sick. He might take you to a dinosaur playground. Maybe he’ll help you get a golden ticket. Or, in this case, he’ll send you on a journey to go defend a home run by a bird lady that houses children with odd and often useless powers who live in a time loop during World War II on a deserted island off the coast of Wales.

What, your grandpa hasn’t done that?

Miss Peregrine’s Home For Peculiar Children, directed by Tim Burton, is based on a book of the same name by Ransom Riggs. The film starts just as said above. Teenager Jake (Asa Butterfield) suffers a tragedy related to his grandpa that sends him with his clueless dad to find an old orphanage that his grandpa claims to have lived in when he was younger. Jake finds it, meeting Miss Peregrine (Eva Green) and her charges. There’s Emma who controls air, Olive who controls fire, the twins with immeasurable strength, an invisible boy, a girl who can grow things, and the boy who has… bees in him? But this paradise for these peculiars is threatened when Barron (Samuel L. Jackson) hatches a plot for capturing Miss Peregrine. Luckily, only Jake can stop him.

The film starts off rocky, getting through the exposition and the setup simultaneously as quickly and as drudgingly boring as possible. When Jake actually gets to the home, things start to become steadier. Jake starts to explore the world of Miss Peregrine, and the audience does too. We’re right along with Jake. What’s behind this door? What just darted around the corner? How did that happen? It’s magical, and it is how the movie should have continued.

But then the plot kicks in. The movie lost me about 3/5th’s of the way through, during a “climactic” battle between (and I swear this is true) the skeleton ghosts from The Lord of the Rings, some invisible monsters covered in cotton candy, and some World War II X-men children- on a carnival boardwalk, with some DJ Khaled beats in the background. At this point, it’s not weird. It’s not peculiar. It’s not even likably bizarre. It’s ridiculous, in an unprofessional, uninspired sense. How many movies have we seen in recent years that include faceless, vague, monster enemies? Oh I can name a few. (Deep breath) Suicide Squad, Ghostbusters, Batman V. Superman… and those are just the ones in the past year that I’ve reviewed on this site.

____________________________________________

Dear Hollywood,

I am so sick of these endings. I want compelling villains with motivations. I want villains who, if they create an army, they create an army where I know the weaknesses and strengths of these creatures. Stop making faceless things to destroy. Give me people to root for on both sides. Give me an understanding of the hero’s plan so I’m not just watching them fumble around, trying to accomplish something I don’t get. No more CGI murderfest to simply garner a PG-13 rating. We’re so desensitized to violence, it doesn’t even register. Make an ending count, not just something that has to be checked off the list. I can’t take this anymore!

Sincerely, Madeleine

PS: If you need someone to direct your upcoming live action Mulan, I am available.

____________________________________________

Before you despair about Miss Peregrine, there are things to like. There are original notes in this movie. The special effects are well done and the atmospheric cinematography is gorgeous (see photo above). Asa Butterfield has also grown up well. While he doesn’t have quite the charisma his contemporaries (like Dylan O’Brien or Ansel Elgort for example) have for a leading man, Asa still has a distinguished quality that made me wish he had more to do in this film. Same with Eva Green. Her Miss Peregrine is so interesting and makes such a strong impression, it was a shame that her role also was very limited.

Now, big casts are hard. I don’t expect each character to have strong development. But even in giving each character one short scene (which the film does) you can still portray personality. None of the characters, save for Miss Peregrine and maybe Jake, get any. In the beginning of the film, Jake and Emma meet each other, and three minutes later every character is expecting them to get together. Because they have little to no personality or endearing qualities, I have no idea why they are attracted to each other. Watching them kiss is as interesting as smushing two pieces of blank copy paper together.

If there is a positive for this large, boring cast, it is that there are a ton of female characters! Choose any boring person you’d like to relate to. You’ll probably find one! Unless you’re a person of color, then you only have Samuel L. Jackson’s eye-eating villain. Take that as you will.

Speaking of Samuel L. Jackson… I don’t know if Sam Jackson took a bet, or was auditioning to replace Jared Leto as the Joker, but he is absolutely terrible in his role. I don’t understand (like with so much in this film) what Burton was going for. Whimsical? Scary? Edgy? Bizarre? Stupid? A puke-colored mixture of all of that?  If that was his goal, I guess Samuel L. was perfect.

I saw this film with a friend who had read the books, and her perspective was a conflicted one. She overall liked the film, but was puzzled at some of the changes. She assured me that the techno-monster-skeleton-carnival fight did not happen in the book. Another friend who had read the book but didn’t see the movie with me said that the book is written in a very film-friendly way. It doesn’t need a bunch of changes. Which makes me wonder, if you have a perfectly good book, that already hits the right tone between eerie and whimsical, and you put it with a director known for the same thing, how does this mess occur?

I have a few ideas. Lately, it has become clear that Tim Burton is becoming more of a parody of himself than the filmmaker he once was. While I liked his last film, Big Eyes, it was a significant departure from his style and the type of movie this is. The last movie that he did that was in this genre was Alice in Wonderland (2010). That movie was bland, this movie is silly. Maybe he was just uninspired and thought doing what he always does would work this time. It didn’t.

It could be that the source material really was challenging. If nothing else, Burton could have made it more of an “inspired by” the book than an adaptation. Take the elements you like, disregard the ones you don’t. Or, maybe it’s just a matter of not having a clear vision for the film. The mood goes from frighteningly dark, to hilariously campy, to whimsically silly, to outright incomprehensible.

In the end, when the opening credits are the best part of the movie, you might want to rethink your vision.

A Cynical Modern Day Fairytale- Cafe Society

For this review, I’m going to use the IO9 format for reviews, a Q&A Style.

Warning: Spoilers!

cafe-society

So… how was it?

Oh you know, typical Woody Allen movie. Depressing, melancholy, but still engaging.

Wait, so did you like it?

Yes?

That’s not helpful.

I know. I did enjoy watching it. I liked a lot of it. There are just a few things that didn’t click with me that make me hesitant on giving the film two thumbs up. Maybe just one thumb up.

First off, what is the film about? Then you can rant.

I’m not going to rant! Well, maybe. Anyway, the film is about Bobby, played by Jesse Eisenberg. He’s a young Jewish man in the 1930s moving to Hollywood. He doesn’t know what he wants to do, he just wants to get out of New York. He meets up with his Uncle Phil (Steve Carell) in Tinseltown, where Phil is a big shot producer. Phil gets him some work, and there Bobby meets Phil’s assistant Vonnie (Kristen Stewart.) He falls, and she likes him, but there’s one problem. Vonnie is having an affair with Phil, who is married.

Did you see this film with your parents?

Hahaha, nope. I saw it with a woman whose children I babysit for. My employer. The irony was rich.

I am so sorry.

Thanks interviewer-me. But shout out to the person I saw it with. You’re awesome, and I had a great time, especially discussing it with you afterwards.

So what did you like about the film?

I really liked the performances. Kristen Stewart and Jesse Eisenberg both shine as the leads. I happen to like both of them as people and particularly Eisenberg as an actor. Some people say Eisenberg has little range, which may be true, but not many actors can do what he does. In the right role, he’s great. They have undeniable chemistry, which makes Kristen’s scenes with Steve Carell feel really awkward. He seems a little miscast in my opinion, but then again, I had my face in my hands during a lot of their scenes together, so I might be misjudging him.

I also appreciated the little touches in the film. There is a morbidly funny subplot that is quirky and clever in its own right. The stylized touches adding to the setting of the 1930s are enchanting. The visual aesthetic of the film is breathtaking. And there are some nice lines.

But…..

You got me. I just can’t get behind the message of this movie. Now I can appreciate other people’s worldviews, and I definitely don’t believe in censoring or ignoring things I don’t agree with. I know Allen’s atheistic worldview from his movies: most things will eventually fail you; the world goes on. It’s depressing, but at least Allen is honest. One of the messages in this film is that people you love and know probably aren’t the people you think they are and/or will become what you dislike. Even though I don’t go to the movies to escape reality, I wish there had been some kind of positive alternative presented. The movie would have worked as a cautionary tale if there had been a standard to compare people’s downfalls to, but there wasn’t.

While I was watching Cafe Society and seeing this older man/boss court this young woman, I was struck with the thought that Allen may be trying to defend himself. There is talk about the feeling of love being the same as loving someone.  Other characters validate the affair between Phil and Vonnie, and there is a somewhat happy ending for the couple in question.

Sophie Gilbert pointed out in Variety the connection to Allen’s personal life: “In 1996, at the age of 61, he (Woody Allen) successfully wooed the 29-year-old Julia Roberts in Everyone Says I Love You, the year after he had an affair with Mira Sorvino’s 20-something prostitute in Mighty Aphrodite. In 1979’s Manhattan, Allen’s 40-something character, Isaac, dates a 17-year-old schoolgirl played by Mariel Hemingway (the film is believed to be based on Allen’s real-life experiences dating 16-year-old Stacey Nelkin, whom he met on the set of Annie Hall and dated while she was attending Stuyvesant High School).”

With the whole Soon-Yi Previn situation and the allegations against Allen, it is hard not to consider that when watching one of his films. I’m not sure how to feel about a filmmaker who may be using his films to validate himself in some kind of self-insert (which is what Allen is actually famous for, but Cafe Society just seems to take it too far). An age difference is one thing, but when it veers into the territory of someone in a position of power with someone they could use their power against, it becomes tricky.

That’s great and all, but, um, do you want to, uh, stop talking about this? This is uncomfortable to talk about.

You’re probably right. I need to save the reputation of this site.

Okay good.

Yep.

(awkward pause.) Anyway….

Right. So another thing. Cafe Society acts less like a movie with a message and more like a memory. For someone who doesn’t like nostalgia, Allen doesn’t seem to cut back on any gloss. The movie doesn’t gel because it doesn’t seem like something meant to mean anything to someone other than Allen. He even narrates the film while still having his character stand-in, just emphasizing the fact that this is his Hollywood story. That narration feels like one more boundary keeping the film from connecting with the audience.

Should people see it?

If you like Woody Allen, see it. If you like the golden age of Hollywood, see it. If you like these actors, see it. Just consider wisely whom you see it with.

Hey, I went this whole review without ranting!

Congrats!

Thanks. Now the next movie I’ll be reviewing is Mr. Church.

Oh boy.

-Madeleine D

It’s Just a First Date: Southside With You

southside-with-you

Michelle Robinson is about to not go on a date. It’s strictly a meeting with an associate at her work firm. Nobody believes her, but Michelle is resolute. She gets picked up, ready to go the meeting, and is thrown a curveball. “The meeting starts at 4,” her date, Barack, says. “We’ve got a few hours. Let’s go to a museum and get something to eat.”

And so begins the meet-cute for Michelle and Barack. They go to a museum, the park, lunch, the meeting, and the movies. “You’re a good speaker,” Michelle tells Barack as they walk after he speaks at the meeting. “Ever considered going into politics?”

“Maybe,” Barack Obama laughs. Southside With You is a respectful, romantic look at the President and First Lady’s first date. It is mostly true, with a few events that happened later in real life brought in. With a film that is mostly walking and talking, three things must be on-point to succeed: performances, dialogue, and atmosphere.

Tika Sumpter as Michelle and Parker Sawyers as Barack both do a fantastic job playing the famous couple. It never feels like an imitation, but more of an organic interpretation of both of them. Their discussions about forgiveness, change, hopes, dreams, and the issues of their communities and lives are effortless and engaging. The script, while it has to repeat some things to stretch out the run time, is fluid.

While I have never been to the South side of Chicago, the film sets up the atmosphere of the area well. It feels worn-in and lived-in. Cultural references that are brought in just amplify the authenticity of the environment. Each setting serves a purpose.

After the film ended, I had decided I liked it. There were just a few things that bothered me. “The characters refer to issues, but they never speak too passionately about them,” I told my family as we discussed the movie afterwards. “It seemed like it had a lot of views, but played it safe. It was too tame.” I cited a part of the film where Barack and Michelle see Do the Right Thing and see their boss coming out of the theater. The (white) boss talks to them, and has an issue with the ending. Barack explains it to him, explaining the logic behind the ending. The boss is thankful and praises Barack. Afterwards, Barack tells Michelle he didn’t tell the boss that the real answer to the boss’s question was that the black characters acted in the movie because they were angry.

“Maybe it was tame so white audiences would be comfortable with it,” I suggested. “Besides, in the film, Barack gives a big speech to encourage members of his community. Yet when we see the city and community, it always looks great. The streets are clean, the children are laughing and playing. I don’t see the struggle that Barack talks about. If the film wanted to go for it, then it missed its chance. It also is an extremely flattering portrayal of the Obamas. The whole film is filmed with a rosy nostalgia.”

“But you always remember your first date with nostalgia,” my dad said. “It’s a first date.”

That’s when I understood the movie better. I was expecting the film to be edgy. It’s about a controversial president. It’s about him as a person. He has some unpopular policies. Why aren’t those explored, I thought as I watched the film. Why is this movie so… romantic? Where is the thing that made America attracted to Barack Obama? Where is the radicalism?

However, maybe the radical thing is that it is just a first date movie about a black couple. As a white movie-goer who doesn’t see many “black films,” I rarely see a positive portrayal of a black couple. It says something about our culture that I immediately thought that since it was a movie about black people, it had to be political. With so much of culture portraying blacks as always being angry, to see a movie where a couple is given a nostalgic, rose-colored date, is what is truly remarkable about the film. There is a quiet restraint, whether it be from not being 80’s-tastic, to not making too many references to the future of the Obamas, to not being too political, Southside With You is content with being a first-date movie. It doesn’t have an agenda.

This isn’t a film about what attracted America to the Obamas. It’s about what attracted the Obamas to each other.

-Madeleine D