Dir. Paul King (2017)
Rated PG Paddington 2, the sequel to the Paddington movie series, follows Paddington in his second adventure in London. After traveling a long ways from the jungles of Peru and ending up in Paddington Station, he has been adopted by the Brown family and now lives a comfortable life in a neighborhood called Windsor Gardens. His Aunt Lucy's birthday is coming up, and he finds her the perfect gift in a local toy shop: a vintage pop-up book of London. Days later, the same book is found to be stolen from the store, and all signs point to Paddington being the culprit. He is taken to trial and sentenced to 10 years in jail, even though the Browns and Gruber, the store owner himself, know that he is innocent. This is because Phoenix Buchanan, a pretentious performer who lives across from the Browns, testifies against him. Buchanan (Hugh Grant) was the actual thief, believing that the vintage book was the key to success and becoming a famous performer. Paddington winds up in prison and soon makes many friends, including the notorious and terrifying chef Nuckles, who masters the marmalade sandwich with Paddington's help. Paddington and his new inmate friends soon plan a prison outbreak, so Paddington can go back to his beloved family and prove his innocence. This journey takes Paddington on a wild adventure that is equally as thrilling, charming, and heartwarming as the first movie in this series was. I don't mean to exaggerate, but the Paddington series may be some of the best animated films to date. I've never met someone who didn't love Paddington. Sequels walk a dangerous line when they follow an amazing movie, because if it flops, then it puts a damper on the whole series. Sometimes it's better to not come out with a sequel at all and just let an amazing movie be. (Mamma Mia 2 .. why?) But Paddington 2 was just as great as the original, if not a little better. I don't know what it is, but there's something about this movie series that makes it so likable for all ages. Maybe it's the bear? There's nothing special or different in the plot, it's just like movies for kids. There's a conflict when Paddington is arrested, but all ends well because *SPOILER* he gets reunited with his family, and Buchanan doesn't get the book and gets knocked out on a train somewhere. ALSO, Paddington finally is reunited with his Aunt Lucy. It was the cutest and most heartwarming thing ever. There's also a great scene where Paddington is stuck underwater and Mrs. Brown (Sally Hawkins) dives down to save him. Hawkins is then underwater once again, holding hands with an animal. Remind you of any scene? Having to do with shapes and water? Moving on.... the villains in Paddington are always great. First Nicole Kidman, and now Hugh Grant. I think it helps the movie tend to all ages, because those are two actors that everyone knows and loves, acting in a children's movie alongside a bear. It's a gem. Paddington 2 may be one of the only instances that I liked the sequel better than the original. If you loved Paddington, you'll really love this, and even if you haven't seen the first one, odds are you'll still love this movie.
0 Comments
Dir. Steven Spielberg (2018)
Rated PG-13 The Post is about Washington Post journalists Katherine Graham (the first female publisher for a large American newspaper) and Ben Bradlee and their race against The New York Times to publish the Pentagon Papers. These papers included top secret information about the Vietnam War that Nixon and his agents had tried desperately to cover up. The government had been lying to the Americans about their ongoing success in the war, when really, they were losing and in a catastrophic state. When these papers got in the hands of Graham and Bradlee, they had a monumental decision to make. The New York Times also had these papers on hand, and since they came from the same source as Washington Post's, Graham and Bradlee were facing getting into real legal trouble by publishing them. Graham also had her reputation and role in the paper at stake, being the first woman to be in charge of a major publishing company with a lot of people already looking down on her. Publishing the papers would also expose the government in their wrongdoings, so they were risking the abolishment of the press companies as well. This film delivers messages of freedom of speech and press, gender inequality in the 60s, and the time in history when the role of the government in people's lives changed forever. There were great parts of this movie and not so great parts. It's mostly comprised of dialogue with some really great cinematography spliced in. The scenes of New York, DC and its surrounding areas were beautiful, but I don't think aesthetics were a main focus of Spielberg's while filming. Before watching this, I heard a lot of people say that the movie is boring, and I can see that argument. I was bored for the entire first half until the plot picked up. Once it did, you couldn't take your eyes off the screen, but it was kind of a bummer that I had to sit through the entire first half to wait for it to happen. It also helps if you were actually alive and remember when the Pentagon Papers and Watergate happened in history, so while my dad and stepmom knew exactly what was going on, I had some catching up to do. Even then, I thought it was good but not great. In my opinion, the not as good parts outweighed the good parts, but I think it really boils down to what you like in a movie. Some people love a lot of dialogue and some don't. A lot of other people thought this movie was brilliant and well deserving of its many nominations. I don't hate it, but it doesn't deserve this kind of praise. I also worry that Streep is going to lose her credit as the great versatile actress that she is if she keeps doing roles that she gets nominated for simply for appearing on a screen. (I'm thinking Florence Foster Jenkins and Big Little Lies season 2.) I'm not trying to shade Streep, because I think she is amazing in everything I've seen her in, I just don't want her to lose that. The acting was of course incredible, but it's also great to watch movies with actors that we haven't really seen before in lead roles, which this film doesn't achieve. Compared to all of the other acclaimed films that have come out as of late, The Post lacks in this regard. There are so many different opinions on this movie, though, that it is entirely possible that someone else's opinion is the exact opposite of mine. Dir. George Lucas (1977)
Rated PG I won't give a summary of this movie, because I'm pretty sure anyone that reads this knows at least vaguely what happens in Star Wars. I am the last person in my class to watch this by a LONG run, because I have never been into sci-fi-fi movies. Regarding Star Wars, I always just thought I would hate it (sorry to offend). I had a change of heart after everyone in my film class talked about it, and after the newest one got so much hype. So I figured I would watch them (or at least try to). The movies themselves are in such a weird order. So THIS one is this first movie made in the series, even though it's technically the fourth. I still don't really understand it but whatever. I really wanted to like this movie. I didn't really, but I thought it was kind of adorable. All the special effects are from the 70s, and while it was probably groundbreaking at the time, it looks like a stage production compared to the movies made in 2018. That being said, the characters were really cute and lovable even from the first movie, so I can see why this has such a huge fanbase. My personal favorite was R2D2. The plot itself was hard to follow (at least for me), and it took a lot of focus for me to watch the entire thing through without getting distracted. I really didn't think it was all that great. (I'm really sorry. I feel like I'm offending people even as I write this even though only like two people read this.) However, even though the first movie doesn't give that much of the story overall because there are so many movies, it was nice to watch this because now at least I know the basis of Star Wars and have a small introduction to the characters. I used to have no idea what Star Wars was actually about or what it entailed, so at least I'm not totally in the dark now. This isn't my kind of movie/series at all, but I'm not going to write them off yet. I'm going to try to watch the second one soon, so stay tuned. Dir. Edgar Wright (2007)
Rated R Hot Fuzz is about police officer Nick Angel (Simon Pegg) as he moves from being a constable in London to a sergeant in a British countryside town called Sandford. He is finding the move particularly hard, as he misses all the action and crime in London compared to the slowness in Sandford, when the most recent job he had was finding a missing swan. He's also been assigned a jolly but slow partner, Danny Butterman (Nick Frost), who asks too many questions and doesn't know much about his job. Things change for Angel when a the two leads in the towns' local performance of Romeo and Juliet are found dead. The whole town thinks it is an accident, since there is zero crime in Sandford, but Angel suspects murder. After this murder, more follow, with dead bodies of known members of the town being found. With no one suspecting anything still and no one helping him, Angel is furious that he can't find the culprit of the murders. One night after coming home from the bar with Butterman, he is ambushed in his room by someone in a black cape and hood. Angel uncovers the hood to reveal Michael, one of the employees at the local grocery store who only replies with the word 'Yarp'. After knocking him unconscious, Angel hears his walkie talkie going off. It's Skinner, the owner of the grocery store, ordering him to go to the church once he was done dealing with Angel. When he goes to the church, he sees almost the entire town dressed in black hoods chanting in a circle. All along, the members of the town had been murdering people that didn't follow the towns' perfect moral guidelines. After escaping a wild chase, Angel comes up with a plan to defeat the villagers. On the day judges were supposed to come to consider Sandford for neighborhood awards, Angel and Butterman engage in a wild gun fight with the town. They emerge victorious, and Angel and the rest of the police service have a newly cemented friendship. He even turns down an offer to come back and work in London. Angel and Butterman become best friends and partners, and continue solving crimes in Sandford. This movie was hilarious and I'm not sure why I haven't watched it sooner. Simon Pegg and Nick Frost are an iconic due, and I have admired their worked ever since I watched Paul years ago. It's not serious at all and it's pretty quick, so if you're bored and just want something amusing to watch, this would be a good one. I also feel like this would be a good movie to watch on a date for some reason. The only thing in this movie that I did not enjoy was the gore, but that is just a personal opinion. A lot of people aren't bothered by that stuff and might even think it's funny. But if you don't like blood/gore, maybe skip through the parts where a large spike falls on a guys' head and when a woman gets stabbed in the throat with garden shears. Other than that, this movie is funny and really enjoyable. Dir. Frank Capra (1939)
Not rated Mr. Smith Goes to Washington is about a young man named Jefferson Smith (Jimmy Stewart) who goes from being the leader of his local Boy Rangers group to a member of the United States Senate. His state's governor appoints him on a whim, and soon he is in Washington D.C. with a seat in the Senate chambers. Smith is a naive young man with many things going for him, including his looks and charisma, but he is obviously very unexperienced when it comes to the world of politics. Days into the job, Smith already finds himself in a huge conflict. As a newly minted senator, Smith has a dream of instilling a national boys camp for young boys all over the country who are too poor to afford any kind of summer camp or vacation. This interrupts plans that are brewing between the political leaders in Smith's home state, who are planning to buy the same land and build a dam that Smith wants to build the camp on. To prevent this from happening, a group of politicians (many of whom were Smith's own friends and advisors) created a false accusation that Smith already owned the land where he wanted the camp to be built, and the bill that he was proposing was created just to profit himself. In an attempt to prove the accusations are false and that he is innocent, Smith launches a filibuster that lasts nearly 24 hours. Mr. Smith speaks non-stop this entire time, spouting about the political ideals made by the American forefathers. During this time, the men who made the false accusations against Smith collude with the papers to get the public to hate him. When Smith's Boy Rangers rally to try to defend him, they're met with attacks from the public who support the state's politicians. Mr. Smith is close to giving up all hope, and after nearly a day of speeches, he collapses from exhaustion on the senate floor. Realizing what pain he has caused an innocent man, Senator Paine who helped start the accusations came forward and told the Senate President that Mr. Smith was innocent and it was him who should be expelled. Mr. Smith, who is barely conscious at this point, is met with cheers from the entire audience in his support. I did not know I could love older, black and white films until I watched those directed by Frank Capra. And Hitchcock, but that is completely different. I'm not trying to be derogatory towards black and white films, but it is rare for me to watch an older film and actually genuinely like it based off the story alone. Usually it's more like I am watching it and trying to appreciate the film for its kitchy-ness or just to say that I've seen this really old movie that everyone else has seen. When I watched It's A Wonderful Life and now this film, I think I got it. I wasn't just watching an old movie for old movies' sake, so I felt like I had accomplished something pretty big. Capra's movies are the definition of pick-me-ups. This movie was 2 hours long, but it goes by so fast, and then you're instantly in a better mood. Who wouldn't want to watch that? Also, after watching numerous films featuring Jimmy Stewart, I can safely say his role as Jefferson Smith is my favorite by far. Of course he is kind of the same in every film, or at least the way he speaks is, but he looks so young and naive in this movie and really fits the role. I really just wanted to reach through the screen and give him a hug. I really can't find a flaw with this movie. It is recommended. Dir. John Carroll Lynch (2017)
Not rated (there's nothing really bad in this movie, just some language. Don't rush to see it with your kids, though.) Lucky is about the spiritual and mental journey of a 90 year old man, Lucky, (Harry Dean Stanton) who has outlived all of his friends and family. Living on the outskirts of a quite and un-populated desert town, Lucky is independent and still does everything on his own. He starts every morning with the same routine: brushing his teeth, showering, doing 'yoga' exercises, drinking a glass of milk, and then smoking half a pack of cigarettes. He visits the diner and has a cup of coffee and does the daily crossword, then heads to the drug store to buy more cigarettes. He then goes home to watch the afternoon game shows, and then ends his day by going to the local bar and having a Bloody Mary. He is well known and loved by everyone in the town, and they all go along with his harsh and dry sense of humor. The entire movie follows Lucky doing the same routine again and again, but along the way he has transformative interactions and experiences with people in the town that help him come to terms with the meaning of life, friendships, and the unescapable fate that is mortality, accompanied by beautiful desert scenes and mariachi and soulful harmonica music. This movie was very quiet and reflective. It makes you think about death a lot, which is a con for some and a pro for others when deciding to see this movie. Just keep that in mind. When I read reviews earlier, a lot of critics called this movie dry and boring, which I don't think is true. I actually think it is the exact opposite. The movie is quiet, with not a whole lot of dialogue, and it does (like I said) follow Lucky doing the same exact thing everyday. But if you were really paying attention, or even if you can just get past that, this movie is about so much more. During Lucky's routine, he talks to people in the town that enlighten him and give both Lucky and the viewer wisdom. I feel wise and old just after watching this. The entire theme of this movie is Lucky coming to terms with his own morality and death, and the movie offers so many aspects to that thought that so many people think about and are terrified by everyday. There were many references to the Bible in this movie, but they were hard to catch. There's a scene when Lucky is leaving a bar after nearly getting in a fight with someone inside, and one of the men, Paulie (James Darren), follows him out on the street. When they're out there, they are next to a nightclub or bar of sorts, but all the viewer can see is a blaring red light leading the way to the entrance. Paulie gets entranced by the red light and walks into the place in a daze like state. Lucky follows and gets to the entrance, but you never see what is inside. You only see Lucky staring down into whatever is in the building. That seemed like a pretty strong reference to hell, with the red light and all, but it never gets referenced again in the movie. Also, when Lucky is at home watching the game shows, he always pauses to call someone on the phone. You hear Lucky having a conversation with someone, but there is no voice on the other line. I felt that was a reference to Lucky talking to God in some way, but again, it is never referenced again in the movie. The last striking reference was when Lucky was walking home, past a building that he repeatedly curses out when he passes it. the viewer later learns that it is the bar that Lucky got kicked out of, Eden's, for smoking inside. Towards the end of the movie, the viewer sees the entrance to the bar that Lucky passes everyday, and it is a beautiful garden with statues and tall grass. And the bar is called Eden's. Garden of Eden, get it? So the movie was pretty laden with the Biblical references, but they are never explained. I think they all tie into the theme of Lucky coming to terms with death and understanding the meaning of life in the first place. Along with the references, the human connections and interactions Lucky has and makes are really what make the movie. There were so many endearing moments that made me want to cry, and I did cry in some. He learns from everyone in this movie: the owner of the local diner, the woman working at the drug store, the owner of the bar he goes to and everyone who goes there. They teach him little things over the course of the movie that help him face his fear of meeting his end. There's a scene where Lucky goes to the woman who works at the drug store's son's birthday party, and he gets up and sings a song for the the entire crowd. There's also a scene where a man at the bar is depressed because his tortoise, President Roosevelt, ran away, and everyone is making fun of him for being so sad about a tortoise. It turns into a really emotionally moving scene that I don't want to spoil, but I do recommend watching. This movie may not be everyone's cup of tea, but it was mine. I was really moved by it, but it is really deep. If you're in the mood for a light and comedic movie, this isn't the one. If you want to cry and think about your own mortality, then this is definitely the one for you. Dir. Sydney Pollack (1985)
Rated PG Out of Africa follows a rich, aristocratic woman named Karen Blixen (Meryl Streep) as she moves to Africa to be a dairy farmer. She plans to join her husband, Bror, for whom she doesn't actually have feelings for. They only married because Bror wanted Karen's family's money, and Karen hated the thought of being single. While there, Karen finds out that Bror went behind her back to set up a coffee farm instead of dairy. He then leaves to go on hunting expeditions and farms without her, basically leaving her in the dust. She then befriends a hunter, Denys (Robert Redford) a wild and carefree spirit. They spend everyday together, him taking her on hunting trips, safaris, and plane rides. She eventually develops feelings for him and they both fall in love. They have a fast and adventurous romance, that eventually ends in heartbreak. My mom forced me to watch this movie, because she claims it is one of the best she has ever seen. My dad also LOVES this movie, and when I told them both I thought it was just okay, they went on long rants for why it is a cinematic masterpiece and that I need to watch it again to really get it. I don't think that's necessary, so I won't be doing that. I still think that this movie was just OKAY. It's certainly not bad, but it didn't blow me away. I thought it was too long, for starters. This movie reminds me of Gone with the Wind in some aspects. The characters Scarlet and Karen are strikingly similar in my opinion. They are both very strong women, but they get carried away with their feelings for particular men, and that kind of annoyed me. Though this movie was long, the relationship with Denys and Karen went way too fast. Maybe that was the point of their relationship, because it was all about living in the moment for them, but it seemed to me like the actual development of the relationship was weak and everything just happened too quickly. It was fun while it lasted, but the entire beginning of the movie I could see it coming so I was just waiting for them to end up together. When it ended, and SPOILER ALERT, when Denys suddenly dies, I was just.. frustrated. This entire movie, that is way too long, builds up to their relationship and then it all of a sudden ends because Denys got in a plane crash. My parent's argument: Denys is a wild, carefree man who explicitly stated that he could never be held down in a relationship. He is in love with the world and wants to see it all, and for him to be such a wild and reckless man, there was no other way for him to die than suddenly and in a plane crash. I admittedly get that. I was still irked at the way the movie handled their relationship, I guess. I WILL say that the scenery and music in this is quite nice. For me, it was one of the only forgiving parts and what I liked the most. I see why this movie was nominated for a lot and so well received when it came out solely because the scenery.soundtrack is amazing (in my opinion). It was also really cool to see Meryl Streep act in one of her earlier movies, because she is one of my favorite actresses. She was great, but I do think sh has gotten even more amazing with time. Her versatility in roles that she is able to play blows me away. Anyways. I understand why this movie was seen as the best thing since sliced bread when it came out. Some people may think its the love story that withstands time, but I don't agree. It was good for its time and I'm not saying it's bad! I just don't get all the praise that my parents gave it. I do think that it's a movie that you should watch because it is a classic and deserving of a watch and people have so many different takes on it. You might love it. Dir. Guillermo del Toro (2017)
Rated R Set during the Cold War, The Shape of Water is about a mute woman, Elisa (Sally Hawkins) falling in love with a sea creature (of sorts). The creature was found in the oceans near South America and brought back to a top secret US government laboratory, where Eliza works as a cleaner. The Americans are holding it to use it against the Russians, the enemy at the time. Everyone there tortures and treats the creature like a monster to see what it is really capable of, but Eliza soon befriends it and they make a connection. She eats lunch with him and offers him eggs, and she seems to be the only person the creature is amiable towards. Later in the movie as tensions progress, the government officials decide to kill the creature, because it cannot communicate and they don't think he/it holds any purpose in the war against the Russians. This news devastates Elisa, and she decides that she is going to rescue the creature and house him in her own apartment. She does this with the help of her co-worker (Octavia Spencer) and her next door neighbor and best friend (Richard Jenkins). When the creature is in her home, they develop a deeper connection and eventually fall in love. I went into this movie expecting not to like it. First, the director. The only other movie I've watched directed by del Toro is Pan's Labyrinth, and you can read my review on that if you want to know how I feel. In short: didn't love it, WAY too weird. I don't even want to get started on the eyeballs-in-hands guy. That being said, I was expecting this movie to be just as weird and disturbing. Second, the idea of a sea creature and a human falling in love was.... not unthinkable, but close. It just seemed to be too deep into the realm of bestiality. As I was watching it, I also had these same thoughts. There are scenes that leave nothing to the imagination: Elisa and the sea creature have sex. And it's not implied, it is seen. So just get the thought in your head, it's gonna happen. You can also kinda guess it in the trailer, so you are pretty much expecting it. I just couldn't get over it for a while. For me, I didn't love this movie from the get go. The more I think about it and the longer it's been since I've seen it, however, the more I love it! Once you get past the sex parts, this movie is good. Or if that doesn't bother you at all, then you'll probably love this. This movie is more than just a sea creature romance, I see it now as more of a metaphor. Elisa, being a mute, and the creature are both outcasted. Elisa is pretty much ignored by society, except for her friend at work and her best friend in the apartment next to her. No one pays her any mind simply because she cannot speak. The only other time she gets any attention, it's from the slimeball misogynist government agent Strickland (Michael Shannon), who just wants to take advantage of her. Elisa partly fell in love with the creature because he saw her for who she was, one of the only people to do so. She made that pretty clear to Giles (neighbor) when he almost refused to go along with the rescue operation. Simply put; if you're disabled in any way, you're not treated the same. You're ignored and looked down upon and devalued. That made a big point in this movie. When you take the layers away, this movie is a romance and connection between two outcasted beings. I admired that part. This movie also showcases heartwarming friendships, the ones between Elisa and Zelda (co-worker), and Elisa and Giles. These two supported her through everything and saw her connection with the creature. This was also a really beautiful movie, for the most part. There is great cinematography and beautiful colors. There were some scenes I felt were pretty gross and unnecessary too, though. There's a scene where Strickland has sex with his wife that serves no other purpose than just to show how misogynistic and slimy he is. There are also some scenes regarding separated fingers that I won't go in depth about. They just didn't really have a purpose. That's just del Toro I think, though, because there were some pretty gruesome scenes in Pan's Labyrinth, too. They didn't worsen the movie anyways. In short, this movie really grew on me. I'm glad it's nominated, and I'm glad I saw it. It really is a beautiful film with a deeper meaning. |
AuthorCasey Land Archives
January 2018
Categories |