Most Anticipated Movies of 2017

Happy New Years! It's time for end of the year posts. Sometime in January, I'll be posting a list of my top 10 movies from 2016. However, I wanted to wait and get the chance to catch up on a couple of films I've missed before finalizing that list. So instead, I thought it might be fitting to make a list of the movies I am most looking forward to in 2017. Note that I might not end up seeing all of them, depending of course on the kind of content that ends up in those movies.

Split
Split is a horror/thriller movie directed by M. Night Shyamalan. Is this going to be a return to the acclaimed thriller style of Shyamalan or a continuation of his current streak of terrible movies? So far critics who've seen it at festivals have been somewhat favorable, but we'll find out when it comes out in theaters in January.

The Circle
A movie that casts Tom Hanks, Emma Watson, John Boyega, and Kristen Gillian already has my attention. Add the fact that it's a sci-fi dystopia story is even more interesting. It looks like it's going have a social media as Big Brother kind of focus, but I'm not really sure from the trailer. Anyways, it comes out in April.

Beauty and the Beast
This will be the next installment of Disney's quest to make live action versions of all their classic films. Beauty and the Beast is a great story with brilliant music, courtesy of Alan Menken of course. This is another Emma Watson movie, starring as Belle. Do I need to say more? Beauty and the Beast comes out in May. Also, check out the trailer below. Am I the only one getting Sound of Music vibes (see 1:00 in the video)?

Marvel
I'll admit it. I've loved every movie in the Marvel Cinematic Universe except The Incredible Hulk. And maybe love is too strong a word for Iron Man 2, although I still liked it. The point is, they have a system and it seems to work. So I'm looking forward to all of them. And this year for the first time, we get three in one year. As much as I'm looking forward to seeing Thor and the Hulk team up in Thor: Ragnarok and seeing Iron Man and Spider-Man team up in Spider-Man: Homecoming, the one I'm looking forward to most is Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2. I might write a review in the near future of the first Guardians movie, but it is one of my favorites in the series; it might even be my favorite. The trailer looks like it's got the same quirky sense of humor that doesn't take itself seriously (at all) and Chris Pratt being himself. And of course the music, which was such a major factor in the first Guardians. Once the trailer came out, I've had Sweet's "Fox on the Run" in my head ever since.

Ghost in the Shell
Ghost in the Shell is apparently based on a manga, but I don't know anything about the story there. But the trailers show a dingy cyberpunk dystopia that looks great. The aesthetics remind me of Deus Ex: Mankind Divided, one of my favorite video games.  Judging from the trailer, it could either be really great or really inappropriate. It comes out in March.

Dunkirk
Christopher Nolan is my favorite director, so I was already onboard with Dunkirk. But then I saw the trailer and it looks great. Plus, the story of the British retreat from Dunkirk is such an moving story; it will interesting to see how much Nolan turns the patriotism up in the movie. As I've said before, I don't really enjoy war movies, but if anyone can convince me, it's Nolan.

Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets
Original science fiction is rare these days and much appreciated. Valerian is based on a French comic series and will be the biggest budget French film in history. It looks promising from the trailers and hopefully the French influence will shake up American sci-fi with some different perspectives. It comes out in July.

Murder on the Orient Express
Ever since seeing The Force Awakens, I've been interested in anything that has Daisy Ridley in it. So when I heard that she was going to be in an adaptation of Agatha Christie's Murder on the Orient Express, I got onboard that hype train. There's not a lot of details about it yet, but it comes out in November.

Coco
Also coming out in November is Pixar's movie about Mexico's Day of the Dead celebration. Once again, I know next to nothing about this film. What I do know is that original Pixar movies are usually pretty good. Hopefully this will be more like Inside Out and less like The Good Dinosaur.

Star Wars Episode VIII
Disney has apparently decided that what everyone wants for Christmas is a new Star Wars movie and they plan to deliver. The Force Awakens was so brilliant. It will be exciting to see where the francise is headed. And with Carrie Fisher's passing, it is going to be so much more poignant for fans. R.I.P., Carrie Fisher.

Black Hawk Down

I want to preface this by saying this: I don't like war movies. It isn't the violence that really bothers me; I just can't get into them. So anything negative I have to say about Black Hawk Down can probably be chalked up to that. I'm sure it really is a fine film.

Black Hawk Down tells the story of the American special forces soldiers who fought in Somalia. What started out as a quick mission to grab some high-ranking members of a Somalian militia went sideways after a helicopter was shot down. This lead to a number of American soldiers being killed and their bodies dragged through the streets for the entire world to see. What was supposed to be a quick mission turned into an all day battle. Black Hawk Down chronicles the heroism that the members of the Delta squads and Ranger teams showed (although it minimizes the heroism of the Pakistani and Malaysian troops who, along with the10th Mountain Division soldiers, eventually went into the city as well to rescue the pinned-down soldiers. In addition to many wounded, seventeen Delta and Ranger soldiers died as well as two 10th Mountain Division soldiers and one Pakistani and one Malaysian soldier.)

My biggest problem with the movie was that it was so tedious. Of course, that was probably the point; it was more than tedious for the men involved. But this kind of movie just does not resonate with me. Of the 2 hours and 24 minutes of the movie, I would guess close to 2 hours of it involve constant gunfire. At some point, I just kind of get numb to all the shooting and wish that something would happen or the movie would end. In addition, all the guys look pretty much the same in their combat gear. It just ends up (to me at least) being a movie of a bunch of nameless guys fighting a bunch of other nameless guys. I just had trouble latching onto any of the characters and even keeping them straight. However, I did appreciate that the fighting was not a glorification of war, a "look-how-cool-these-guys-are" kind of movie. I don't mind that kind of film (see every Marvel movie ever made) but it would be completely out of place in a serious war film like this.

There were some pretty great moments in the movie that did not involve gunfire, however. My favorite scene was at the end of the movie where the general who commanded the mission goes into the hospital where the wounded are being treated. One man is bleeding so profusely, the blood is running across the floor. The general picks up some rags and kneels down to try to clean up the blood. It's clear that he feels responsibility for what happened and he just wants to do something, since he couldn't go out in the field to try to rescue them. But instead of cleaning up the blood, all he ends up doing is smearing it around, emphasizing just how ineffectual he feels. It's a great touch.

Rating: 3 stars

Overall, if you like war movies, then Black Hawk Down will probably be just right for you. Like I said before, I don't really, so your experience will probably be better than mine. If you don't, this one isn't going to be any different and I'd give it a miss. I read the book a few years ago and found it to be a fascinating story – definitely better than the movie.

Caveat Spectator

It's an R-rated war movie, so it has pretty much the kind of blood that you should expect. The characters don't get a lot of lines, but most of those are profanity. Fortunately, a decent amount is almost unintelligible given the amount of gunfire going on.

Rogue One

Like every American, I saw Rogue One this week. And while I enjoyed it quite a lot, there were also some things I was mixed on.

First, let's talk about the good. Felicity Jones was very capable in her role as heroine. Jones, who by the way also starred in ITV's adaption of Northanger Abbey, plays Jyn Erso, a reluctant member of the rebellion. But over the course of the movie, her commitment grows and she comes to lead a ragtag group of rebels to steal the Death Star plans (spoilers, but come on, we already knew that's what happened in this movie). This group includes a rebel spy who has done "terrible thing" in the name of the rebellion, a sarcastic droid, an ex-Empire pilot, a blind Force monk (he's the coolest part of this movie), and his machine-gun toting sidekick. While we don't really get to know any of these characters as well as we want, that isn't really the point. One of the things I loved about Jyn's character is that she is a true feminist heroine; she doesn't need a man and is able to take charge of a combat mission. Like Rey from The Force Awakens, she is never objectified by the camera (or anyone else). Her clothes completely make sense for the combat mission she is leading – no metal bikinis here.

Second, as I already alluded to, the Rebellion is not portrayed as completely noble. Of course, the Empire is still portrayed as evil. But at the start of the movie, the Rebel Alliance is really more factions than alliance. There's Saw Guerrera and his militia, fighting a guerrilla war in Jedha, where the Empire is trying to harvest crystals for the main gun on the Death Star. They aren't afraid to use extreme tactics and it's clear that the other rebels see them as little more than terrorists. Then there's the Rebel Alliance, which is conflicted about whether the rebellion should take the form of open conflict with the Empire or continue the current strategy of sabotage, assassination, and espionage combined with resistance in the Senate. The discovery that the Death Star is being made, however, forces the Alliance to come together and fight.

Third, Rogue One did a great job of filling plot holes from A New Hope. I don't really want to get into this because I want you to go see it and have the joy of discovering these for yourself. But I'll give you a clue – there's a reason the Death Star could be destroyed by a single well aimed torpedo shot.

Now, I want to talk about what didn't work for me. This really comes down to one thing – Rogue One  just didn't feel like Star Wars to me. Right from the start, the score set me off on the wrong foot; it sounded like those scores you hear on YouTube that are trying to remind you of Star Wars but carefully avoiding actually playing the music so that they don't get slapped with a copyright violation. So from the beginning, I already started to get the feeling that I was watching some extremely high-quality fan fiction. As the movie went on, I found myself being reminded more and more of the Star Wars novels, some of which were really good, but which, again, I always considered as officially licensed fan-fiction. After I got home, I tried putting my finger on what bothered me about this movie and I think it comes down to the genre. To me, Star Wars is really fantasy masquerading as science fiction. It's about a peasant boy who becomes a knight with a sword and magic powers on a quest to defeat the dark lord and save the world. There's none of that in Rogue One besides the monk who is trying to connect to the Force. But Rogue One is really an action spy thriller in a science fiction setting; the fantasy is nowhere to be found. This is partly where the new trilogy went wrong – they tried to take the magic out of the Force and replace it with science mumbo-jumbo about midichlorians living in the bloodstream. While Rogue One is back seeing the Force as religion, the movie is more about blasters and plans for giant space stations than it is about the Force.

Rating: 4 stars

I know it sounded at the end like I was hating on Rogue One, but I really wasn't. I would definitely recommend it. There's a twist at the ending that I didn't see coming but really liked. The film is really beautiful and I think it works as an action thriller. I completely agree with Christopher Orr from The Atlantic's summary: "Rogue One is neither as good as a good Star Wars movie nor as bad as a bad one."

Also, I spent most of the movie waiting for my favorite lines from the trailer, none of which ever showed up. This isn't really a negative because it turned out that those scenes weren't really needed. But still, what version did all those scenes in the trailer come from?

Caveat Spectator

I can't really think of anything. There's plenty of violence, but it's the kind found in superhero movies where wounds mysteriously don't really bleed. 

Eye in the Sky

When you try to tell the plot of Eye in the Sky, it seems rather sparse. It's a movie about a counter-terror mission involving drones and centers around the decision to strike or not when a little girl enters the area to sell bread. But it isn't really about moving the plot forward; it's about the ethical dilemmas faced by military personnel and politicians in the war on terror.

The movie starts with everyone showing up for a somewhat routine mission. The British are leading a counter-terror mission in Nairobi, with Kenyan special ops working on the ground and a team of American drone pilots assigned to provide air support. The drone pilots are assured that they are there to observe only. All is going according to plan until the terrorists move into a Somali slum run by Al-Shabaab. The Kenyan military doesn't dare follow because they are afraid of the huge civilian casualties such an attack would cause. This means that the drone will have to take out the terrorists with a Hellfire missile. The urgency is intensified when it is discovered that the terrorists are inside the house donning suicide vests. However, a small girl is sitting next to the house selling bread and will almost certainly be killed by a strike. The remainder of the movie is spent by soldiers and politicians attempting to weigh the potential harm of a suicide bombing against the certain harm of an innocent child. It is also complicated by the fact that Kenya is a friendly nation to Britain and is not a conflict zone (although because they are working with the Kenyans, they have permission to be there; the movie neatly sidesteps the sovereignty question in drone strikes to focus on the question of civilian loss of life). 

In the end, Eye in the Sky doesn't present any moral or ethical solution. Instead, it spends the entire movie putting the arguments for both sides very strongly and letting the viewer decide which solution is right, if there is indeed a right solution. It takes great pains to show that either decision has grave consequences, both on the people directly affected and those back home making the decisions. One of the things I love about this movie is it shows that commanders and drone pilots are impacted by these events, even though they are safe at home. At the beginning, I thought the movie was setting up a contrast beside those at home and those on the front lines doing the "real" work. It kept switching back and forth between the Kenyan troops and intelligence agents and the Americans and Brits back home. The Kenyans were nervous and engaged in a life and death struggle while their counterparts are chatting about sports and walking in carrying Starbucks lattes. But by the end of the movie, you realize how much of a toll this type of warfare takes on those making the calls. As Alan Rickman's character says (in his flawless voice) when challenged with that very accusation, "never tell a soldier that he does not know the cost of war."

Rating: 4.5

It's such a thought-provoking movie that I already want to watch it again. And the actors are very good, especially Alan Rickman. As it is one of his last movies, the movie is dedicated in memoriam to him. If for no other reason, it's worth watching because of him.

Caveat Specatator

Rated R for language and violence. Honestly, the violence was not any different than any of the other war on terror photos we have grown accustomed to seeing on the news. There was some language, but barely enough to warrant the R rating. If it deserves an R, it's a pretty mild R.

Bridge of Spies

I watched Bridge of Spies this weekend for the second time and I loved it just as much as the first time. (OK, it was a few weekends ago – I'm a procrastinator.) Bridge of Spies is, despite the title, really a law movie and a (mostly) true story. The movie splits fairly neatly into two acts. Act 1 is about the trial of Rudolf Abel, a Soviet spy. Tom Hank's character is an insurance lawyer who gets tapped to represent the spy. I don't want to say too much about this part of the film because I want to write a separate post in the future about the trial. Bridge of Spies has important things to say about what it means to be an American and uphold the Constitution during times of uncertainty and danger and is really applicable for our current national situation. But more on that at a later date. Also in Act 1 are the events surrounding Frances Powers, a U2 pilot for the CIA, being shot down by the Soviets. Act 2 is about the negotiation for Powers. James Donovan was asked by the federal government to travel to East Berlin and convince the Soviets to swap Powers for his client, Abel.

When Donovan gets there, he finds that East German government is wanting to prove that they are also a power to be reckoned with. They have captured a student who crossed into East Berlin and want to exchange him for Powers to prove to the US that they are a sovereign nation and to prove to the USSR that they can be useful and should be respected. Donovan is torn between his mission to get Powers and his desire to get this student returned, but the CIA is adamant that he is only to get Powers. You'll have to see it for yourself, because I don't want to give away how it ends (although if you are familiar with this period in history, you might already know the story).

While Tom Hanks is great, the real star of the show is probably Mark Rylance, who played Soviet spy Rudolf Abel. Rylance won a well-deserved Oscar for best supporting actor for Bridge of Spies. He was absolutely brilliant and this movie deserves to be watched if for no other reason than his performance.

I have to be honest – I loved this movie. It is admittedly Oscar-bait and reviews were kind of mixed. However, my admiration comes down to two things. First of all, James Donovan is a truly heroic lawyer. He sacrifices his own interests time and time again for the best interest of his client, whether that be his reputation, his career, or even the risk of spending time in a Stasi jail cell. He is a modern-day Atticus Finch. Perhaps in real life, like Atticus in Go Set a Watchman, he is not as admirable as the movie portrays him; I don't know. But Bridge of Spies is not portrayed as a straight biography; Spielberg takes liberties for the sake of the story. So Donovan becomes a truly heroic figure worth the admiration of lawyers and non-lawyers alike.

Secondly, Spielberg does the brilliant approach of making you admire a Soviet spy while completely rejecting Communism. Bridge of Spies is unabashedly patriotic. There are several scenes designed to contrast the Soviet block to America, whether it is a prison cell, a courtroom, or just a city street. My favorite contrasts people climbing over a fence. In East Berlin, Donovan is looking out the window of a train and sees someone shot trying to jump over the fence. When he gets back to New York, he repeats the scene, this time in daylight. As he looks out the window of a train, he sees children jumping a fence, laughing. Spielberg sets up several of these scenes throughout the movie to contrast Western and Communist society. Despite being anti-communist, Spielberg is forced to admire the courage of the Soviet spy who is loyal despite his government being disloyal to him. As Donovan points out, it isn't treason what he is doing because he isn't American. He even reminds the judge that we have people doing the same thing. Donovan's argument (and Spielberg's) throughout the movie is that we prove our superiority to our enemies by being true to our values. This is especially poignant today when our society is increasingly tempted to use methods that undermine freedom and morality to fight terrorism.

My one critique is about the scene where the American pilot is shot down. At one point, he is knocked out of the cockpit of his falling jet, but manages to hang on and climb back in. This feels unrealistic and is jarringly out of place in this otherwise realistic film. If it was a Marvel movie, my suspension of disbelief would have kicked in and I would have enjoyed this feat, but as it was a historical film, it annoyed me.

Rating: 4.5

I'd give this 4.75 if that was an option, but under my admittedly arbitary rules I only give out whole or half stars. Mark Rylance is amazing and is reason enough to see the movie. But there is that one plane crash scene, so I feel compelled to take something off.

Caveat Spectator

This movie is really quite clean. There is no discussion of anything sexual, although there is one scene where an old man is seen in his underwear. There is occasional language, but not too frequently. Violence is also not an issue; the rare images of violence are seen mostly at a distance. Some moments could be scary for small children, but this is not a movie for children are likely to enjoy anyways.

Still Alice

 
 Still Alice is a story about a woman who develops early onset Alzheimer's disease. When Alice discovers that she is losing her memory, she, her family, and her colleagues are stunned. It seemed like she had everything together and under control; she was a brilliant linguistics professor, a fit and athletic runner, a healthy eater. In addition, she had a loving and supportive relationship with her husband and children, who were as smart and successful as herself. In short, her life was marked by every indicator of success and long life. Still Alice chronicles her decline as she succumbs to the effects of her disease.

If you haven't seen this movie, there are spoilers coming. Just skip down to the end for the rating and caveat specatator if you don't want to know about the story ahead of time.

The first main focus of the movie is Alice's personal struggle to accept what is happening to her. Alice's condition deteriorates very quickly. I'm a little confused about the timeline (I think it skips over a whole at least once), but it is still a very short period of time. At the beginning of the movie, she is only starting to forget the occasional word or getting lost on her own campus. By the end of the movie, she often does not remember where things are and occasionally does not recognize her own family members. In the last scene, her condition has deteriorated so much that she can barely speak.

The other main focus is the support her family gives her. Alice's family is loves her very much. This does not mean that they are always patient with her; on the contrary, they are sometimes so upset about what is happening that they erupt in angry shouting. But more often, they are there to help her when she loses things or when she wets herself as she gets lost in her own house looking for the bathroom or just when she needs someone to weep with her. Alice's husband is there for her at every point, showing her truly selfless love. Her youngest daughter turns out to be the most supportive of the children, going all the way to put her acting career on hold to stay with her mom. This is something of a surprise, because Lydia had always kind of been viewed as a loser by her older siblings due to her refusal to go to college. Unfortunately, the movie did not develop Lydia's role as much I would have liked. Kristen Stewart actually wasn't terrible in this role (a pleasant surprise given her reputation in Twilight) and it would have given her a chance to shine a little more. But more importantly, it could have developed her relationship with her mom a little more.

Still Alice struck a note with me because my great-grandfather had Alzheimer's disease when I was a child. I can barely remember a time before Grandpa had Alzheimer's disease (much like Alice's twin grandchildren will never know her without the disease if she lives long enough for them to get to know her), but I do remember how he declined as time went by. I remember him yelling at my Grandmother (his primary caregiver) and never seeming to know who anyone was. It took a serious toll on everyone around him, especially my Grandma. Alzheimer's has always kind of terrified me ever since. I almost think I would rather have any ailment than lose my mental capacity. Alice talks about how much she relied on her intellect and tells her husband "I wish I had cancer!" And she's right – society looks much more highly on those who suffer a debilitating disease that hurts their body than one that makes a person lose their mind.

The terror of Alzheimer's is really the terror of death. We can try to keep our minds in tip-top shape, our bodies trim, and our diet the most nutritious and healthy, but in the end death catches us. And it is happens with no regard to our best attempts to delay it. Our attempts to be in control of our lives are the façade we use to convince ourselves that we will be the exception, that we will never die. Still Alice ends with Alice surrounded by love, but it is still a tragedy. Alice's bright mind is gone forever, at least in this life. It doesn't have to be a tragedy, however. For the Christian, even the loss of our minds is a temporary loss, a brief waiting for the moment when "everything sad [is] going to come untrue."

I really enjoyed this movie. Julianne Moore was especially brilliant. Her portrayal of the ups and downs, the sorrow, and the fear of descending into the fog is touching. I also appreciated the affirmation of life – Alice at one point attempts to escape Alzheimer's through death. This fails and the film attempts to show that she is still part of her family and is still loved; in essence that she is still valued and is, despite all the changes and losses, still Alice.

Rating: 4.5

Not quite a 5 since this is not a movie I'm going to watch over and over, but I loved it, especially Julianne Moore's performance. Very thought provoking.

Caveat Spectator:

There is definitely some language in this movie as well as a brief sexual conversation between a husband and wife. Common Sense Media and IMDB say there is brief nudity ("side of woman's butt"), but it must have been very brief because I didn't notice it.