Sunday, May 14, 2017

Starting a New Chapter with Once Upon A Time

When Once Upon A Time premiered on ABC in 2011, it was such an enchanting show. There was nothing like it on television, and for the near future, there's not to be a similar adventurous experience again. As news soars in about the future of the series, the seventh season will whole start a new chapter.

The first season was one of my all-time favorites of any show ever. Its heroine Emma Swan is compelled by the son she gave up for adoption to enter a secluded town called Storybrooke. Henry believes everyone is a fairytale character, and don’t know it because a curse has been placed on them by his adoptive mother Regina Mills. He compels Swan to believe that she was destined to save the town and break the curse keeping them in the dark.

Monday, May 8, 2017

Jennifer Morrison Bids Farewell to Once Upon A Time

Jennifer Morrison leaving Once Upon A Time
Photo Credit: ABC / Once Upon A Time
It's hard to imagine a show without its lead character but that's exactly what ONCERs have to face. After a long-awaited musical episode leading to Emma Swan and Captain Hook's wedding, actress Jennifer Morrison confirmed the worst: she's not returning to Once Upon A Time after season six.

The actress shared the announcement on her official instagram.
As I reached the end of my 6 year contract on ONCE UPON A TIME, I was faced with a significant decision. ABC, Eddy Kitsis, and Adam Horowitz very generously invited me to continue as a series regular. After very careful consideration, I have decided that creatively and personally, it is time for me to move on. Emma Swan is one my favorite characters that I have ever played. My 6 years on ONCE UPON A TIME has changed my life in the most beautiful ways.
This news comes after a turbulent season for the series. Unlike other shows on the ABC network which were given an official renewal or axe in early March, Once Upon A Time struggled to save itself,. Ratings continued to drop, leaving Storybrooke fans to wonder if the show had any magic left in it keep going. Morrison's announcement comes after an official renewal for a seventh season.

Now, I'm not even the most devout fan, but sometimes I wondered if it would've been good for the series to quit while it's ahead. Too many creative issues couldn't have fixed the past and mistakes continued to linger in every new episode. I often go back to season one and feel like there was so much potential left on the cutting room floor. Most of the time, it was the cast that kept me interested more so than the writing or worldbuilding. It remained one of the most optimistic and hopeful shows on tv. As the yellow brick road has come to an end, Morrison exiting the show isn't all that surprising.

Morrison has promised that she will be be back for at least one more episode of the show, so that at least guarantees the start of season seven to handle Swan's departure or explain her whereabouts. Her exit puts the rest of the cast in a bit of a pickle and leaves us to wonder about fan favorites. Actor Robert Carlyle, who played Rumpelstiltskin, was the second most outspoken star to say he was hesitant to sign on again. Word has it that the rest of the cast such as Lana Parilla, Ginnifer Goodwin, and Josh Dallas haven't renewed either. Colin O’Donoghue's contract, who plays Swan's husband Captain Hook, still has another year left.

Show creators Adam Horowitz and Edward Kitsis have been toiling with the idea of a reboot, taking the show in another direction with a new narrative. In what could be the series finale airing Sunday, May 14th, the two-hour final battle between Emma Swan and the Black Fairy comes to a head.

Swan's arc on the show is still something to be cherished. She was a lost girl who grew into a powerful woman deciding her fate alongside a loving family and believing in happy beginnings. But what will Once Upon A Time be without Emma Swan? I hate to say it, but a probably a whole new show, and one that fans will struggle to get on board with.


What do you think of Jennifer Morrison's exit?
Has Once Upon A Time's ship finally sailed?

Monday, April 24, 2017

Series Review: Bates Motel

Bates Motel review
Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho tells the twisted story of Norman Bates; a young man living at a desolate inn who kills a troubled hotel guest, but there’s much more to him than meets the eye. If you ever wanted to know more about the complicated loner and his overbearing mother, Bates Motel accomplishes what only a few have conquered before: re-imagine a classic horror film into a classic horror television show.

The 1960 film without a doubt put the psychological- slasher genre on the map and will remain a classic for all-time. As the master of mystery Hitchcock dolls out suspense in terrifying measure, the story doesn’t explore the complex relationship between mother and son. Save for the ending where Bates’ slashing tendencies is delved into between a psychologist and the victim’s closest relatives, there’s always more to wonder about them both. The re-imagining created by Kerry Ehrin and Carlton Cuse goes much further.

Building up to the evening where Marion Crane was murdered, Bates Motel dials back the years to when Norman and Norma first acquire the famous motel in an effort to start over. After suffering psychological disturbances throughout his childhood, Mother thinks a new place is just what they need. But a different life doesn’t fix all of their problems as Norma fights off detrimental plans destined to drive traffic away from their inn, the town’s seedy underground of drugs, and even darker secrets about their family Norman couldn't ever imagine.

It’s safe to say that Norman and Norma are the hearts of the show as well as the movie.  Though Anthony Perkins’ performance in the movie is without a doubt timeless, Mother exists, intriguingly but lightly, as a literal skeleton in a closet. Except for Perkins and Hitchcock’s detail to the atmosphere, it’s very one-sided. Bringing both of these characters to life comes unforgettable performances from Freddie Highmore and Vera Farmiga who are tasked to make a disturbed duo likable, interesting, but also scary and dangerous.


Sunday, April 23, 2017

Feud (2017) Season 1 Review

Feud series review
Photo Credit: Feud / 20th Television
Having set a precedent for award-winning and binge-worthy shows, Ryan Murphy knows what it takes to make a drama. His latest creation Feud tackles notorious rivalries throughout history. It was fitting the first one tackles Joan Crawford and Bette Davis' famously bitter showdown.

After becoming Classic Hollywood screen queens, Joan Crawford and Bette Davis aged like the rest of humanity. With younger, hipper generations growing up on television as the studio system fell apart, their careers suffered dry spells. When Crawford initiated a project of two cruel sisters harboring jealousy and secrets in Whatever Happened to Baby Jane, the claws came out. On-screen and behind-the-scenes, a real showdown was ignited between the duo by the studio and publicity hounds.

Legend has it that the two hated each other. Speculation around this rivalry float in every which direction, it’s hard to tell what’s the truth or was fictionalized. Adding more misdirection following the movie's release, the stars threw shade at each other in interviews only to retract them later. Instead of resorting to catty squabbles and Real Housewives-esque drama, Feud tries to ask what was the source of their hostility and why they couldn't let their resentments go.

Drawing on second-hand biographies and heresy within the industry, this version tries to be as well-rounded as possible. Even though every episode spurred sites to fact check what was true or elaborated, Murphy does a smart thing by indulging in news pieces but focused more on Crawford and Davis’ limitations, strengths, and weaknesses. He depicts an exceptional range of ageism, sexism, the pressure and manipulation they endured from Hollywood, and publicity that threatened to put the final nails in their professional coffins.

As much as they regarded each other as enemies, Crawford and Davis were more alike than they could've recognized. Personally, they suffered insecurities wrought by rejection, always wanting to be better. In love, they married multiple times, and as mothers never recovered from scathing autobiographies their daughters published, where Hollywood's elite, former spouses and friends of the actresses would decry as trash and lies. Professionally, they had different acting approaches. They maneuvered through the studio patriarchy as best as possible; both trying to transition "past their prime" as women and performers trying to not be remembered as a laughing stock, or nothing at all.  Despite what they had in common, they struggled to see each other as allies trying to live up to the fans expectation as well as their own.

To carry Murphy’s vision, Lange and Sarandon play Crawford and Davis, respectively. As veteran performers in their own right, they’re certainly perfect picks because of their range and experience. It’s difficult to replicate their characters' talent, but they managed to portray them enough in mannerisms and attitude. Each explores self-value within and out of Hollywood. As the studio drives a wedge between them, they're left to vilify each other to protect their glory days. If they reach out, it's almost in vain to their self-preservation. In doing so, they render determination and ballsiness but also great vulnerability.

Though Feud explores both titan's struggles with a well-studied range, it also takes too long to find its groove and never quite reaches the same palpable energy displayed in Whatever Happened to Baby Jane. As a making-of feature, the attention to detail with the sets and costumes is extraordinary for the most part. Playing the role of Crawford and Davis off-screen from their Baby Jane characters is when Lange and Sarandon truly succeed. But put them in scenes recreating earlier work or Baby Jane, and their performances are bad copycats with cheap wigs and choppy line delivery. These small moments reinforcing what talents these women initially were doesn't match their brutal obscurity.

It's hard to imagine these icons created something so palpable as the real icons that it earned Oscar nominations and created a whole new genre by which other aging Tinseltown titans had to follow through with to stay alive too. By all means, Feud studies the legends we think we know, but we're still talking about the movie itself fifty-five years later not just because of the bloated rumors of what went on behind-the-scenes. No matter how relevant the blatant sexism and ageism in Hollywood, let alone society, still exists today, the talent of Crawford and Davis are undeniably brilliant, and on those recreation scenes, Feud misses the mark.

Primarily told in flashbacks within a fictional documentary, Murphy often employs other characters to reinforce his powerhouse leads. Some are needed, some are a pure distraction. Those connected to the main stars, such as Judy Davis as the spirited snake-in-the-grass Hedda Hopper and Alfred Molina as director Robert Aldrich caught in the middle, offer more direct sympathy. But when Catherine Zeta-Jones as Olivia DeHavilland and Kathy Bates as Joan Blondell, among others, intermittently pop up to offer commentary, they weakly reestablish what's already playing out. DeHavilland at least has a closer utilized friendship to Davis, while Blondell is just sorta there. As the last few episodes increasingly attempt to soften the vicious narrative created by Christina Crawford's autobiography Mommie Dearest, Davis' near identical issues aren't as greatly explored and the story starts to drop off into a heartwrenching and half-realized what-could've-been finale.

In 1962, Baby Jane revived two stars to younger generations, and fifty-five years later, Feud will re-introduce their work to even more people. It’s hard to watch the show and not want to watch the movie. That’s a very good thing. However, other than the script, and the exceptional performances, the series never quite reaches the level of palpable energy of its inspiration. Murphy's biopic of sorts intelligently swaps juicy gossip into a heartfelt catharsis, but also made me think there’s simply no way of capturing the original, and it’s okay for legends to just be that.

Rating: ☆ 
If you love Feud, you might like: 
Conversations with Joan Crawford by Roy Newquist
Mother Goddam: The Story of the Career of Bette Davis by Whitney Stine

Have you seen Feud? What did you think?

Wednesday, April 19, 2017

6 Feels You Get After Seeing a Bad Movie

6 Feels You Get After Seeing a Bad Movie
Whether at home or the movie theater, there's nothing quite like seeing a really bad movie. An okay movie can be redeemed by a memorable performance, imaginative production design, or a wicked soundtrack. Ever walk out of a theater and feel like you wasted your time or money? you're jealous of people walking out of a theater happy with their night out? YEP. A pretty bad movie can make you remember where you were the day you saw it even though you want to forget. If you're lucky, it'll be bad enough to get a lot of memes or earn an honest trailer. A movie that fails to live up to your expectations or has terrible direction or cast is a real bummer. These are six feels you might get after seeing a really bad movie. Am I missing a feeling you get? I'd love to know! Feel free to share in the comments!
boo monsters inc sleepy gif

Tired

After seeing a really good movie, you might feel energized and wonder how the time magically flew by. This sleeper flick just seems to go on and on and on with no end in sight. A car exploding in a massive action scene or an actor shouting might give you a shot of much-needed adrenaline, but when the end credits start you're tired...if you're lucky to have not snoozed through the movie already.

Bored

Nothing is happening. Maybe words are coming out of the actor's mouth but you can't make sense of what they're saying. Or that one frame was pretty....but you feel like nothing is going on. You're waiting for that moment to feel engaged, but the story isn't holding your attention. So you start thinking about grocery shopping, your job, did you leave the stove on at home, should you've spent your afternoon at the DMV instead...That's one boring movie!

Confused

The movie could've been really good, but what was the story really about? why was the direction so weak? Maybe the characters' choices went against their motivations, and you're left to watch the mistakes unfold. You might even anticipate how the next scene will change things around. There's got to be a good twist or cathartic ending to clean up this mess....There's nothing to do except wonder dumbfoundedly - how could a movie be so terrible? What did I sit through? what is life?

Cheated

You're psyched: the music videos are awesome. The trailer gives you life. But something happens between initially seeing the teasers and the movie's release. The ad campaign misses the mark on what the movie was going to be about. It's one thing to have expectations, it's another to feel like you were watching an entirely different movie than what you were anticipating. Were you watching an entirely different movie? GAH, you feel so cheated. You want the movie you were promised!

Ranty

A better protagonist. Cut the montage. The villain doesn't have to be a super softie underneath because of his *woe is me* past. Fewer edits. Deepen the romance. More pacing between scenes. You have a checklist of ideas for how the movie could've been better. If only the studio or director knew what they're doing, they could've had a hit on their hands, which makes you feel ranty. CAUSE IT COULD'VE BEEN BETTER.

Disappointed

The movie had one job to do: not let you down. But after the hype for months from friends, or family, the internet, the movie fails on an epic score. In fact, the promotional tour of trailers and interviews were much better than what the movie was advertised to be, or what you thought it was going to be. You might've just lost a potential fandom or favorite, but it feels like you lost something much bigger. It's going to take a lot to get over this disappointment. Maybe a good movie will do the trick?

Sunday, April 16, 2017

The Man From U.N.C.L.E Sequel in the Works (This is not a drill)

The Man From U.N.C.L.E. sequel
Photo Credit: The Man From U.N.C.L.E / Warner Bros. Pictures
Back in 2015, a stylish, comedic, and action-packed spy movie took some movie goers including yours truly by storm. It was Guy Ritchie's remake of the classic television show The Man From U.N.C.L.E.

Henry Cavill, Armie Hammer, and Alicia Vikander played spies during the end of World War II trying to stop Nazi sympathizers from getting their hands on a nuclear weapon.

The movie decently satisfied critics but didn't exceed expectations, and subsequently, had an uphill battle at the box office barely just making back its $75 million budget. But since the movie set up the possibility of a franchise, leaving the trio to team up once again for another op, fans were left wondering if a sequel would ever happen.

While talking about his latest film Free Fire, Armie Hammer divulged to SlashFilm that he gets asked about a sequel all the time and that one is in the works. The film's co-writer and producer Lionel Wigram is apparently on the job to get a second film written.
I was like, ‘Dude, what’s the deal? I get asked about this **** all the time. Can you just write a sequel?’ He was like, ‘You know what?...I’ll do it. Sure, I’ll write a sequel.’ I was like, ‘If you write one, I’m sure we can get one made,’ so who knows? Apparently, the sequel is being written right now.
Officially, a movie isn't in the works just yet. Director and co-writer Guy Ritchie or other members of the cast haven't signed on. With interest from Armie Hammer to get a project rolling, hopefully, miracles can happen. Fans are clamoring for the next mission, so sorry to say Wigram, there's a lot of pressure to deliver. *fingers crossed*

UPDATED: While doing interviews for King Arthur, Ritchie talked about the possibility of doing another U.N.C.L.E. and that he'd be on board to direct.

Are you excited for a possible The Man From U.N.C.L.E sequel?
Feel free to share your thoughts in the comments!

GPOY as the news broke

The Girl On The Train (2016) misses its thrilling destination

The Girl on the Train movie review
Photo Credit: The Girl on the Train / Universal Pictures
Reading the book before an adaptation’s released is typically my M.O. There’s something special about fleshing out a novel into pockets of time, adding up pages here and there so I can feel a little bit more about the characters and story from my imagination in the movie. Last year, a psychological thriller The Girl on the Train by Paula Hawkins was my latest attempt.

The premise was interesting enough: an alcoholic woman Rachel (Emily Blunt) commutes to the city on the train every day and night. From her seat window, she watches a mirror of the life she used to have play out with her ex-husband Tom (Justin Theroux), his wife Anna (Rebecca Ferguson) and their child. Getting glimpses of a neighboring couple Megan and Scott (Hayley Bennett and Luke Evans), Rachel finds purpose in imagining how idyllic their life must be. When Megan goes missing during one of her drunken stupors, she fears the worst and tries to discover the root of her disappearance.

Though fan and critic reviews aren’t favorable for the movie, I’m unsure how readers felt with this adaptation. For me, it’s weird to hold half-hearted expectations towards both, and wonder if the other one measures up. Putting my failed attempts to read the book aside, in a very strange way, the movie still doesn’t pan out.

It’s not for a lack of trying by the cast, most of all with Blunt as the star. Because of her alcoholism, Rachel is determined to figure out what happened the night Megan went missing. But because of it, her perspective of events are deceptive. Days blurring together in flashbacks and an overactive imagination reveal the illusions of her marriage, and the profound sorrow stemming from not being able to have a child. As an undependable source for half of the story, she's also wildly empathetic because for her sake you want to know what occurred. Nearly on-screen for the whole movie, Blunt gives a memorable performance of emptiness and desperation.

Outside of Rachel's mental and emotional carousel of delusions and realizations, this is where the mystery begins and ends. Surprisingly, there's no real investigation into Megan's disappearance except tidbits here and there. It's a high enough priority for a detective to visit Rachel and question her, but not get involved beyond the media reporting on it. Minor characters are swept to the side who could have a bigger impact. Except Rachel (and Scott) inching around the truth, there's no real sense of urgency to find Megan sooner rather than later.

While the movie tries to merge thrills with issues like infertility, the story skims the surface on both. A line seems to be drawn between the male characters who are red flags to pay attention to in relationships, and the female characters are much more interesting but aren't given much to work with. Every male character is a hormonal leech who want what they want (sex, kids, etc) no questions asked, while the women are shells of their former selves, facing pressure to conceive or not, and questioning their worth based on their husband's expectations. Rachel, Anna, and Megan are inextricably linked by these things, and Rebecca Ferguson and Hayley Benett are intriguing, but they're not given enough time to set themselves apart.

Given the enigmatic trend movies like Gone Girl, director Tate Taylor inadvertently or purposely echoes the atmosphere of David Fincher’s 2015 movie. Both have something in common with mixing a missing person’s case and a deeper exploration of marriage, but unlike Gone Girl, Taylor is a little out of his depth. His cinematography, cross-overs between characters and timelines, and vibe feels like a copy and doesn't live up to its inspiration.

I wish I could've stuck with the book, but I felt as stumped with its story as I did with the movie. Suspense lingers while Rachel's pain and discoveries unfold, but that doesn’t last long. If one guesses who the perpetrator is early in the story, and it’s not difficult to do, the big reveal is even less impressive. The biggest shock for me wasn’t the revelation of who killed Megan, but finding out that Rebecca Ferguson played Anna 'cause I never recognized her with blonde hair. Despite Blunt’s performance, The Girl On The Train never arrives at a place to be truly thrilling.

Rating: ★☆☆
Watch Instead: Gone Girl, Big Little Lies
Have you seen or read The Girl on the Train? What did you think?