My thoughts on the new Dunkirk Trailer

(For my actual thoughts on the trailer itself, skip to the fourth paragraph):

Growing up, Christopher Nolan has, as a filmmaker, been a large presence in my life with films like Inception, The Dark Knight Trilogy, and the Prestige. So much style, atmosphere, and cerebral elements that stuck in my mind after leaving the theater that its always fun to talk about them. I've always looked forward to a new film of his being released but the last two releases, The Dark Knight Rises (has a number of problems but has a lot of good stuff too) and especially Interstellar (was quite ambitious in scope but rather predictable, emotionally unsatisfying, and a bit depressing in storyline) left me a bit underwhelmed.

With the upcoming Dunkirk in 2017, however, its still a bit too early to tell, but judging by the new trailer, it feels like Nolan is going to be back in full force with this one. When the project was first announced, I was so used to Nolan's films being in the crime, science-fiction, fantasy, and surrealistic genres with non-linear storytelling that I was a bit narrow minded and confused as to how he was going to approach the project. Was this going to be like a surrealistic war movie? A sci-fi time travel sort of thing? How is this going to work? He's never done a film of this genre before.

But in actuality, his previous films prove that Nolan is perfect for doing a film like Dunkirk all along because despite the surrealism, non-linearism, and off the wall action and spectacles, all of his films have had a gritty realism to them that helped ground the more fantastic elements so that they're believable. Following, Memento, and Insomnia are pure crime stories with the most fantastic elements being the background and situations of the characters,, high detail is given to the period that The Prestige takes place in with all the magical elements being explained, and the more outlandish parts left mysterious and vague but in tune with the tone and is not altogether too outlandish, Inception balances realism with fantasy into two worlds but sets things up in a way that the two can be confused, and The Dark Knight movies are gritty crime stories with Batman having the use of realistic military equipment in his work (and the easy means of obtaining them because he's a billionaire) and the villains being the most outlandish elements either because of how they're dressed or their background but their intentions and beliefs are realistic and gritty in an insane way.

Getting to the actual trailer itself (sorry about that), I'm immediately excited because as a history enthusiast, I love learning about anything from the past that I had never knew before (especially the 19th and 20th centuries and World War 2) and as a period piece, Dunkirk looks great: old, gritty, darker colors or lack there of. It looks and feels like an old fashioned war film akin to something like Saving Private Ryan or Paths of Glory. What adds to that feeling even more and makes me very excited are all the great members of the cast Nolan has collected: Tom Hardy, Kenneth Branagh, James D'Arcy, Cillian Murphy, and Mark Rylance. I know i'm going to have a fun time just based off that. The story itself sounds great too about hundreds of thousands of soldiers being trapped under constant enemy fire and the efforts to get them out (I haven't seen that many war films before but this kind of story mixed with the tone and actors involved always makes me want to see more of them) and I'm excited to see what Nolan does with it.

I really have no problems at all with this trailer. Really I have more of a problem with some of the reactions to the trailer on Youtube (a stupid thing to complain about because its the Internet, I know, but I just have to bring these up).

Some people have said that the trailer looks boring or it does nothing for them. The latter I can get because war films, like any genre, are not for everyone (I myself have only watched certain war films because of who was involved in production rather than the actual film itself, which I need to change) but for the people bored by the trailer: Um, watch more movies and or study history. Its a true story, it takes place during one of the greatest conflicts in all of human history, and just because it might be slower, doesn't mean it will be boring. Watch the movie and let it happen to you before you complain. Not everything has to be fast and quick cut.

The other complaint I noticed was about the casting of Harry Styles from the band One Direction in the film. While I have heard a lot of negative thoughts about the band and while I'm not really a fan of the post 2000s teen pop kind of bands/musicians that have appeared, I don't know that much about the band anyway and no one has seen this guy act so I think its a little early to complain about him. For the most part, Nolan really seems to know what he is doing and I trust his judgement. He's made controversial casting choices in the past (Heath Ledger as The Joker, anyone?) and look how those have turned out. (Really, the only time/s its felt like Nolan has miscast someone has been Marion Cotillard in The Dark Knight Rises and David Oyelowo in Interstellar (but those were badly written roles to begin with anyway, so its not really their or Nolan's (from a directing standpoint) fault.

Long story short (too late), I'm loving what I'm seeing from Dunkirk so far, I'm excited to see what the future trailers show and I'll definitely be at the theaters when the film opens next year. Let me know what you thought in the comments below:

Moana

Moana is a wonderful film: Beautifully and richly animated with strong, heartfelt characters, an engaging story, toe-tapping songs and great humor.

Directed by legendary Disney artists John Musker and Ron Clements ( of The Little Mermaid, Aladdin, The Princess and the Frog, and Treasure Planet fame), the film is about a Polynesian girl named Moana who has loved the ocean all her life and wants to go beyond her island home to explore it, but cannot due to her father's insistence that they have everything they need on the island and her time is better suited to leading their tribe. When their source of food starts to die off however, Moana must venture out and find the demigod Maui and return a magical stone he has stolen, to make things right again.

The film has a very strong cast led by newcomer Auli'i Cravalho, a wonderful actress and beautiful singer, as Moana and Dwayne Johnson as Maui, who has a lot of funny quips and one-liners, as well as a magical tattoo (that kept reminding me of the Genie from Aladdin for some reason).

The story and animation blend together wonderfully, exploring the theme of finding one's identity and true calling in life and really opening up the scope and majesty of the epic world it inhabits, which is the culture and mythology of Polynesia (bringing back happy memories of my visits to the Polynesian Cultural Center in Oahu. If you haven't gone, I highly recommend it!). The film somehow even manages to subvert the cliches of Disney formula like joking that Moana isn't technically a princess since she's the daughter of a chief or glossing over the fact that "she is the chosen one", which is actually really refreshing. It also takes its time at telling the story, dedicating at least half an hour or so to setting everything up, but it really pays off, leaving me very satisfied emotionally.

While not as catchy as "Try Everything" from Zootopia or ear worm, can't get it out of your head inducing as "Let it Go" from Frozen, all the songs in Moana are still very strong, heartfelt and memorable, especially "How Far I'll Go" and "We Know The Way", which I've found myself listening to several times after having seen the movie (and plan to listen to listen to several more times in the following weeks).

I really have nothing negative to say about the film other than extreme nitpicks that I could easily overlook with a second viewing, although I could see these being problems for other people, like why, except for comedy relief and one brief moment during the climax, was Moana's animal sidekick a really dumb chicken? It had no significance to the plot. Other nitpicks include some of the jokes involving Maui being a little too meta, like an eye roll inducing in-joke to Twitter, a cliche that took away from Maui's arc a little bit, and least of all, some of the transitions into songs were a bit sudden.

But like I mentioned above, those negatives are extreme nitpicks that do very little if anything at all to deter the so many great positive elements of the film overall.

I definitely say see it! Disney has done it again!

4.5 Stars out of 5

Doctor Strange

Dr. Strange is the latest entry in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and the latest to introduce a new character and new environment/world to explore during their origin story. 

Benedict Cumberbatch does a great job as the titular Doctor Steven Strange, a cocky and selfish but brilliant surgeon who eventually turns sorcerer after a car accident permanently damages his hands, as do the rest of the cast, especially Rachel McAdams as Christine Palmer, a nurse and Strange's ex, Chiwetel Ejiofor as Mordo, a fellow sorcerer, Tilda Swinton as Strange's teacher The Ancient One, and Mads Mikkelsen as the villain Kaecilius. All the main characters in the cast are wonderful acted and their relationships are really strong and heartfelt (there are some moments that are really sad and heart tugging) , especially the chemistry between Cumberbatch and McAdams. The majority of the character arcs are strong and effective as well.

The visuals and special effects are extremely well done and imaginative, as are the fight scenes. Unfortunately, two major elements of this movie hinder all the positive elements of the movie, preventing me from giving a higher rating: Strange's character arc and the world of the movie that the story takes place in.

With Strange's character arc, it just feels rather muddled. I was never really sure whether his arc was going from a selfish jerk to a more selfless person, finding a way to move on and find a new purpose in life after his accident, to forget everything he knew and see things in a new life, embrace death, or all of the above, because they felt all over the place, so I was never quite clear about what it wanted to say.. Not only that but, while it did show some progression of an arc (like Stephen practicing and learning these new skills, a lot of times, they felt really rushed, like I didn't know that Strange has been training for several months until a character says it, but it only feels like a few days. Then suddenly, he is thrown into a new location where he'll be ending up at the end of the film. The arc was in so many pieces that only the relationships he had with Palmer and Mordo felt emotionally earned (even the crossover during the credits felt rushed as well).

With the world that the story takes place in, I love the idea of someone exploring eastern methods of healing and spirituality (indeed Buddhism and Hinduism sound like very intriguing topics), but the film is so vague and confusing with the "other worlds, dimensions and planes of existence) element, that, when mixed with Strange's muddled character arc, I didn't find myself caring as much about the overall story as I should have, and I don't have much of a desire to see the film again. 

Maybe I will catch more details on a second viewing and if they fix these two problems while keeping the other elements strong in a sequel, then I will totally be on board. Until then though, I find this only an okay addition to the MCU and a meh addition to the origins section of the MCU library (Go to the first Iron Man and Captain America: The First Avenger for the absolute best of that section).

3 stars out of 5

My Thoughts on the first trailer for the 2017 Version of The Mummy

My thoughts on the new Mummy Trailer: I'll say right out that both the original 1932 Mummy and the 1999 Brendan Fraser remake are two of my favorite films; the 1932 version as classic monster horror and the Brendan Fraser version as an epically fun and old fashioned love letter to pulpy treasure hunt adventures. 

After the disastrous Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor, however, I thought the Mummy as an overall series was good to put to rest and I was satisfied emotionally, thinking they had covered all their bases with the slow creepiness of the old fashioned horror in the original and the fast paced romance and adventure of the remake and even the more explicit horror of the Hammer versions.

On the same note, I love Tom Cruise and his movies like the Mission Impossible series, Edge of Tomorrow, Minority Report, and some of his early work like A Few Good Men. 

When I heard that Universal was bringing the Mummy and Tom Cruise together, though, I had to pause with some interest. Its Tom Cruise, its the Mummy, and its in modern day and played straight horror. Okay, this could be interesting. Let's wait for the trailer and check this out.

Well, the trailer has arrived and...meh?

It starts off with a well choreographed exploding airplane scene but the tone just feels off. It feels like a mixture between Mission Impossible and Transformers, with a little bit of Clive Barker thrown in (which is ironic as Barker was originally hired to work on a version of The Mummy in the early 90s before the Brendan Fraser one came out. But from what I've seen of Barker's work though, none of it comes off as "This is Ancient Egypt" to me.

There were a couple of weird sound effects in that airplane sequence though: the first being the sound of one of the pilots being hit by the locusts crashing into the windshield. I'm not sure, but wasn't that sound effect a death cry used in Goldeneye 64 from the 90s? Second, while Tom Cruise's scream is a bit weird in general, he can use it to great effect like in Mission Impossible or Edge of Tomorrow, but here? It sounded really weird. Almost forced in a way. Then again, that would make sense because Cruise has hung off the side of a plane in flight and propelled down the largest building in the world so pretending to be in a plane crash wouldn't seem that scary.

The Mummy's tomb and the Mummy herself played by Sofia Boutella, who I'm dying to see in Star Trek Beyond, have a weird tone as well with the tomb looking like something out of H.P Lovecraft rather than an Egyptian tomb, and the Mummy kind of looking like the villain from The Ring.

The film itself is meant to serve as an entry in Universal's new franchise spin on their classic Horror Monsters with all of them coming together ala The Avengers or the Justice League, which is brought up in the trailer via Russell Crowe's appearance as Dr. Jekyll. While Crowe's casting as Jekyll kind of makes sense, I can't help wondering what he'll look like as Mr. Hyde. But every time I think of that, it keeps bringing up images of the Mr. Hyde from League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, a bad but corny and fun (to me) film and that just comes off as really bizarre.

Then again, this is only the first trailer and I don't want to judge a book by its cover It will be interesting to see what kind of "straight horror" scares and atmosphere they bring to the film and, seeing behind the scenes footage, I could tell the cast and crew were having a great time, especially Tom Cruise, and that's usually a good sign. I've seen Cruise in some bad movies but even then, he's always entertaining and is usually the best part of a movie. Even if the movie itself is bad, I know I'll enjoy watching him in it, guarenteed.

For now, I'm being cautiously optimistic until future trailers and the actual film comes out, but for this one trailer, all I can think is "eh, I don't know about this."

The Edge of Seventeen

Its been quite a while since I've seen a film that has been able to balance the awkward, messy, raunchy, heartbreaking, and hilarious elements of a teenage life, while also portraying it with truth and realism. The Edge of Seventeen is able to do just that. You know a film has touched a human truth when its making you cringe while watching it. Indeed, all I could think during these scenes was "Its too real! Its too real!" (Probably why I haven't gone to that many teenage films over the years).

Plot-wise, the film is all about the awkwardness: All her life, Nadine, played by Hailee Steinfeld, has been uncomfortable in her own skin, dealing with the pressures of school and a troubled family life, which is especially exacerbated by an early tragedy. When her best friend and brother start developing a relationship with each other, everything in her life starts to go to pieces.

The script is incredibly jam-packed, delivering not only a lot of hilarious, quirky, and vulgar dialogue, but also moments of bitter painful emotion, that left a sting in my chest once they left the character's lips. It all feels natural and well developed. For a lack of a better word, true to life.

Hailee Steinfeld, who I was happy to see again after her great performance in True Grit, knocks it out of the park with a balanced performance of whiny selfishness and quirky warmth. She's a typical whiny selfish teenager but there's a lot more going on with her under the surface. Steinfeld has great chemistry with everyone else in the cast, especially Woody Harrelson, who gives a nice understated performance as her wisecracking history teacher, and Hayden Szeto as an awkward filmmaker classmate, who she has a sweet relationship with.

The fact the film is produced by James L Brooks, who is known for his warm and hilarious human dramedies like Terms of Endearment, Broadcast News, As Good as It Gets as well as The Simpsons, is no surprise to me because it definitely feels like the kind of film he would make (I hope to check out those three films above soon as well).

On the downside, the film does have some cliched moments such as Nadine's encounter with "the boy she fantasizes from afar", which I could definitely see coming, and I wish some of the resolutions with the other characters could been done a bit stronger, but these are rather minor faults in an otherwise fantastic film.

Definitely check it out.

4 stars out of 5.

My Thoughts on the upcoming Lion King remake.

(This is my first blog piece about my thoughts of an upcoming film. I'll try to do this more in the future as well as classic movie reviews as well).


I usually try to be open minded about remakes, adaptations, and sequels, I really do. I really enjoyed the Disney Cinderella and Jungle Book live action remakes for instance.

I also always look forward to a film by Jon Favreau because he's made a lot of fun movies like Iron Man, Elf, and the recent Jungle Book remake. Even his less well received work like Zathura and Cowboys and Aliens.
But now, Disney is announcing that Favreau is going to be directing a live-action remake, that I just can't see working out: The Lion King.

I'll get my personal bias out of the way and say that The Lion King is not only my favorite animated Disney film of all time, but also my favorite overall movie of all time. However, this is not the reason for me putting the movie down so early.

Rather, its for two main reasons: the visual aesthetic and the voice acting.
With the visual aesthetic of the other Disney live action remakes, those worked because live action versions of the stories in those movies had been done before and done well, and I was curious to see what kind of visual flair Disney and the directors that they picked for that remake would give to it.
Those live action remakes also had at least one physical human actor on screen that helped sell and ground the idea of it being live action.

With a live action version of The Lion King, however, that is not the case. The Lion King, despite taking inspiration from Shakespeare, is its own unique film that was hand animated, and other than the sequels, games, and tv series in its franchise, has never been remade outside of that.
The style in the animated Lion King allowed the filmmakers to tell the story in a creative way, with the feelings and tone of mysticism, mythology, and cartoony humor encapsulated in the shell of a nature documentary.
With the live-action version, however, its all animal characters, which means most likely photo realistic CGI (technically still an animated movie.) Because of that, I have a feeling only the nature documentary aspect would come through most effectively. Don't get me wrong: photo realistic CGI characters have been done well both physically and emotionally in other movies: Smeagel/Gollum in the Lord of the Rings, the Na'vi in Avatar, and even all the animals in the Jungle Book live action remake.

However, speaking of the Jungle Book remake, this restricts those characters or even the story from doing the more cartoony and supernatural elements effectively. When Jon Favreau made the live action Jungle Book, he tried to keep some of the original elements from the animated version in, like the songs. Because he did that though, the scenes that included those elements came off as awkward and even ruining the moment in his version (Christopher Walken as a menacing King Louie starts singing "I Wanna Be Like You" out of nowhere).
Part of what made Favreau's live action Jungle Book work so well though was when he pulled away from being faithful to the animated version and doing his own thing (Mowgli saying goodbye to the wolf pack and his adoptive mother, Raksha in the rain being a top example of that).

Going onto the voices, while I'm sure Favreau and his crew will try their absolute best to find effective actors for the roles in the live action Lion King, with the animated version, I think the crew on that film absolutely nailed the casting. When I bring up the following list of actors, their roles in the animated Lion King is immediately what I think of: James Earl Jones...that's Mufasa! Jonathan Taylor Thomas....that's Young Simba! Nathan Lane...That's Timon! Jeremy Irons...that's Scar! (etcetera, etcetera.) (In fact, that's kind of the same feeling i had with Phil Harris as the animated Baloo, with it feeling awkward when I heard Bill Murray as Baloo in the live action version, besides the fact that Murray has such a distinct voice).


Now this is just initial impressions from a news announcement and I could be wrong: Favreau and his team are effective and really good filmmakers and they made the live action Jungle Book mostly work, but with the Lion King, it feels like a different situation: the mysticism, mythology, cartoon humor, and nature documentary feel were such an integral part of the animated version's story and atmosphere, that if they pull too much away from those elements, they'll lose what made the film great and if they stick too closely to those elements, it'll just be a retread of the original version. Even if they find a middle ground, I can't help but feel I'll be asking: what's the point?
I'll still watch the film when it comes out but still.

Captain America: Civil War Review

Sorry its so late but here's my review of Captain America: Civil War. After an accident during a battle with mercenaries leads to casualties, Captain America and the Avengers must deal with both the Sokovia Accords, a government bill designed to regulate superhuman actions, and the reemergence of The Winter Soldier, who may or may not be responsible for an attack on the United Nations.

What else can I say about this movie other than it is complete jam packed! At least four or five subplots are going on at the same time and yet most if not all of them end up working out really really great. The characters all have deep personal moments and their stories all tie together nicely, whether they're main or secondary. As a result, two big plot moments that I could see coming, still really hit hard emotionally and had big impact on the plot.

Even the introduction of new characters, The Black Panther and the new Spider-Man played by Tom Holland, who I was worried would be needlessly forced in, worked out really wonderfully. So much so, that they made me definitely want to see the Black Panther and Spider-Man solo movies that are coming out the next couple of years (despite me either not having much interest or having lost interest in those characters beforehand). If I had any problems at all with their characters, its that the beginning of Black Panther's arc felt a little bit rushed and could have used just a little bit more build up, but that's really just a nitpick as the rest of his arc is solid (and it can be argued that the buildup will be fleshed out more in the solo movie).

I thought I was going to have issues with the decision to make the character of Aunt May. here played by Marisa Tomei, younger, but the way it was executed and the version of the Spider-Man world that the character was placed in, I thought worked very well and I look forward to how both characters are further portrayed in the solo movie.

All the leads like Chris Evans as Cap, Robert Downey Jr, as Iron Man, Scarlett Johannson as Natasha Romanov, etc. do a great job in their performances, fitting so effortlessly into their roles that they feel like old friends. While some of the actors and characters are fairly new to the series like Paul Bettany as Vision, Elizabeth Olsen as Scarlett Witch, Chadwick Boseman as The Black Panther, and Tom Holland as Spider-Man, I can definitely see them starting to fit into their roles here and further down the road as well.
Daniel Bruhl also does a great job with his role as a surprise villain, who, as opposed to a lot of Marvel's villain, is very subtle and "behind the scenes" in his evil doing. On the one hand, because of this, his character is somewhat forgettable, but at the same time, his actions and character development really leaves a big impact on everyone else.

Along with the actors, the film really comes together thanks to the work and talent of the directing and writing teams Anthony and Joe Russo (who directed both this and Winter Soldier) and Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely (who have been with the series since First Avenger (Woohoo!). They've really done their research and really took the time to make the story and characters work, right down to the fantastic cinematography, lighting, action scenes, etc. If I had any complaints in this area, it'd be that the title cards for the locations (Laos, London, etc.) needlessly fill the entire screen and are a bit distracting. Again, a nitpick).

Really, the only major problems I have with the film involve its tone and the rest being due to personal bias mixed with nitpicking.
With the tone, I appreciate the fact that the film tried to go for a darker more complex feel but its overall tone feels a bit uneven and a little wonky. There are huge chunks of the film that are completely serious and almost humorless. While there are comedy bits here and there though, they're mainly to break the tension from earlier scenes. When the film gets to the big German airport fight, however everything goes completely crazy and hilariously insane (in the best way possible). However, as soon as this sequence finishes, it jumps right back into seriousness.

As a result, the tone feels like a serious sandwich with some hilarious comedy in the middle, or in less convoluted terms, two different movies and that was slightly distracting.

In terms of personal bias, the scene I'm thinking of involves one of the big plot moments that I could see coming. While it does work emotionally and story-wise in the film for Cap, and makes sense for the Cap movies overall, it involves a character who I highly enjoyed watching, both in the Cap movies, and in their own personal TV series. With the moment involving this character that happened in Civil War, and with their TV series most likely being canceled (I'll find out by next week), unless something happens with this character in the upcoming Infinity War movies,.it looks like this character's time in the Marvel Cinematic Universe is sadly coming to a close. I find this really unfortunate as I feel a lot more fun adventures and character development could be had with them.

Nitpick-wise, while the movie was called Captain America: Civil War, it still felt like it was Avengers 2.5 or Avengers 3 quite a bit. However, I only classify this as a nitpick because, personally, I've been used to the singular Marvel movies as being one of the heroes surrounded by a supporting cast, with maybe a cameo or a secondary role by one of the Avengers, and this was a new experience. Not to mention that the final result works as both a Captain America and Avengers movie anyway.

Other than that, any other nitpicks are extremely minor like wishing some characters had a little more screen time/things to do but it makes sense as to why they are like this.

Other than problems with tone and my own personal feelings, this is a great entry into both the Captain American series and the MCU series at large. Out of all the Marvel Universe films, all three Captain America films have turned out the strongest (Iron Man 1 aside) into a solid could be classic trilogy, and I personally think it is because Cap is the most human out of all the Avengers characters. He's not a spy, a billionaire, a god, or a robot. He's just a regular guy who's trying to do the right thing. Sure, he's genetically enhanced, but he's still down to earth, has morals, makes mistakes, feels pain (and insecurity at times) and he has gained and lost a lot, mainly through his own actions. He's human but he's the ideal human, both in physicality and spirit. (I'm sorry if that was really cornball and cheesy).
I definitely say see it if you haven't already.

Rating: 4.3 stars out of 5.

(If anyone is curious, while I do agree Winter Soldier and Civil War are the better films, my personal favorite is still The First Avenger because its great old fashioned action/adventure fun, its got strong characters and stories, great performances, beautiful cinematography (and just because I love anything from the 30s and 40s).