Best Picture Countdown #4: Lady Bird

“The only thing exciting about 2002 is that it’s a palindrome.”Saorise Ronan as Christine “Lady Bird” McPherson, Lady Bird (2017)

Dir: Greta Gerwig
Starring: Saorise Ronan, Laurie Metcalf, Tracy Letts, Lucas Hedges, etc.
Runtime: 1hr33min
Rating: R

Lady Bird is a coming-of-age dramedy about a California teen in her senior year of high school in early post-9/11 America. As she endures the emotional turmoils and personal explorations that come with growing up and preparing to leave the nest, Lady Bird (Ronan) also must handle a rollercoaster relationship with her mother (Metcalf).

Lady_Bird_posterOverall, this film is a delightful look into the life of a teenage girl who is unsure of who she is at a pivotal time in her life, and desperately wants to find her place in the world – she wants to leave her hometown in order to do so, though other forces might compel her to stay. There are countless notable coming-of-age films already out there and more coming every year, but Lady Bird still feels fresh and original. It’s not afraid to let the heroine fail on occasion, make mistakes, or look foolish, and doesn’t sugarcoat painful realizations, but it’s still so easy to root for Lady Bird as she deals with the trials of falling in love, making new friends/potentially losing old ones, and waiting eagerly by the mailbox for college acceptance letters. Bu the film’s high point is the relationship between Lady Bird and her mother, Marian – it will make you want to call your mom and apologize for all the bullshit you put her through in your angsty teen years, and she might have some things to atone for, too. I mean, I saw it with my mom (who has, on more than one occasion, told me to stop dragging my feet) so I got to skip a step afterward… I just had to turn to my left and say, “sorry for not sleeping through my alarm and forcing you to drive me to school so often,” when the credits rolled.

Saorise Ronan masterfully delivers a moody, angst-filled, yet charming and hopeful performance as the titular character. I was once a teen girl myself and recognized a lot of my own “strife” in Lady Bird’s struggles and triumphs, and though her antics might be seen as silly at times or her behavior as irrational, Ronan’s genuine portrayal of a girl seeking her purpose and place in the world is undeniably grounded in reality. I’d love to see her take home the Oscar for Best Actress – been rooting for her since the Atonement days – but I’m not sure she can edge out one actress in particular. Metcalf also turns in a marvelous performance as Marian, Lady Bird’s mother, and their interactions with one another are so up-and-down, yet it’s clear how much they care for one another, even as they trade hurtful insults or are mired in tense silences. I found myself agreeing with her in some moments, yet decrying her passive aggressive comments in others – her nuanced performance is perfect for this role, and a wonderful complement to Ronan’s. In the continuous take where she’s driving off after taking her daughter to the airport, her face reveals a collage of raw, genuine emotion, and the transformation is simply spectacular. I’d love to hear her name read out on Sunday night for Supporting Actress.

Greta Gerwig’s directorial debut is visually stunning, poignant, full of heart, and well-balanced in its focus, but unless the del Toro train stops rolling, it’s doubtful she’ll take home the gold. Her screenplay is sharp, witty, laden with realistic conversations (Kyle’s dialogue is so convincing it’s almost painful to hear, because anyone who grew up in that era definitely knew a Kyle or two) but in such a close race, it’s difficult to predict who will emerge victorious on March 4th. I just know that no matter the result, I won’t be disappointed, and Gerwig is a personal favorite.

Lady Bird is an undeniable success and highly deserving of the accolades it has already received and the nominations still pending, but even though its wonderful, I’m not predicting a Best Picture victory on Sunday night. Regardless, this film should be celebrated and I am excited to see more storytelling and directing from Gerwig in the future.

Oscar Nominations
Best Director (Gerwig)
Best Original Screenplay (Gerwig)
Best Actress (Ronan)
Best Supporting Actress (Metcalf)
Best Film


Best Picture Countdown #5: Dunkirk

“There’s no hiding from this, son. We have a job to do.” – Mark Rylance as Mr. Dawson, Dunkirk (2017).

Dir: Chris Nolan
Starring: Mark Rylance, Cillian Murphy, Tom Hardy, Kenneth Branagh, Fionn Whitehead, James D’Arcy, Harry Styles, etc.
Rating: PG-13
Runtime: 1hr 47min

Dunkirk is a war film that utilizes three different perspectives (land, air, and sea) and a trio of timelines to depict the events of the Dunkirk evacuation during WWII. Over the course of the film, the three viewpoints gradually sync up and the characters collide with one another as a brave fleet of civilian boats seeks to rescue the stranded soldiers.

This film is probably higher on my list than on most, but it’s not just because I’m a Chris Nolan fangirl with a penchant for war films. I mean, as much as I admire him, I don’t think he’s going to take home the Best Director award, though I was pleased to see him get his first nod. I’m actually stunned he’s never been nominated before, but that’s a convo for another time…

Dunkirk_Film_posterOne of the film’s greatest strengths is in what it lacks: dialogue. The tension builds in conjunction with the cinematography, sound effects, and pulse-pounding music, not the words and conversations of the characters. The whine of the planes and the rat-a-tat of dogfights, the crashing of bombs on a beach, the yells of frazzled soldiers and the unnerving creak of a ship about to sink, all combine with the vivid imagery of bleak sands, the dour grey of a morning sky, the bobbing of civilian ships forging a path across the waves, and a shivering soldier stranded on floating debris. Seeing this film in IMAX was a cinematic experience unlike any I’ve seen before, and I was so engrossed the entire time I forgot to eat my candy – something I can safely say has never happened before. This film came out in wide release months ago, long before most of the other nominated films, and I can still clearly visualize several scenes because of how much of an impact they had and how brilliantly they stood out onscreen.

While the entire cast is great, Dunkirk is truly an ensemble effort; I found myself invested in each character’s journey, as a significant portion of time is spent on each of the three perspectives, giving each story the chance to unfold without feeling rushed or drawn out. The timelines weave in and out from one another, but do not come together until the very end, which forces the viewer to put some pieces together and heightens the suspense in crucial moments. And the presence of Harry Styles isn’t a major distraction.

As immersed as I was by the performances and atmosphere of this film – and the apparent historical accuracy in comparison to Darkest Hour – I doubt it will take home the ultimate award on March 4th. I’m not putting money on Nolan either, though Dunkirk might be the best example of his directing chops to date. It’s a dark horse for Best Cinematography, but I actually have another favorite in mind for that race, and though it’s my personal favorite for Original Score (as in, Zimmer’s score seriously enhanced the film, arguably more so than the others) I don’t see it taking that one home either. But, as with the BAFTAs, I think it has an excellent shot at the other technical awards, both sound mixing and sound editing, and has a good chance at film editing as well.

The events of WWII have been depicted countless times across various media and in countless films over the years, but Dunkirk still manages to present something refreshing and new. Nolan may get flak for being “pretentious” and “cerebral” with his films (the end of Interstellar comes to mind…) but in this outing, his experimentation with new narrative styles, his striving for authenticity, the intense focus on visual elements, and the reliance on generating an intense atmosphere with limited dialogue and mostly nameless characters is a cinematic triumph worth seeing on the big screen, and well-deserving of a Best Picture nomination.

Oscar Nominations
Best Director (Nolan)
Best Cinematography
Best Original Score
Best Production Design
Best Sound Mixing
Best Sound Editing
Best Film Editing 
Best Picture 

My full review of Dunkirk from July 2017 is available HERE

Best Picture Countdown #9: The Post

If we don’t hold them accountable, who will?” – Tom Hanks as Ben Bradlee, The Post (2017)

Based on the true story of the controversial revelation and handling of the confidential Pentagon Papers, which detail the United States’ involvement in the Vietnam War, Steven Spielberg’s 2017 film The Post follows Washington Post heiress Katharine Graham as she grapples with the decision of whether or not to put her paper in the line of fire for the sake of journalistic integrity and truth, or preserve her friendships and relationships with those entwined with the Nixon administration.

On a surface level, political thriller The Post checks all the boxes. You’ve got Tom Hanks. You’ve got Meryl Streep. You’ve got Steven Spielberg. You’ve got John Williams. You’ve got early 70’s fashion. You’ve got a relevant message that rings true in today’s controversy-mired and volatile political system. And yet, even with such a stacked team of people working behind it, The Post is simply fine. It’s a thriller, but not an edge-of-your seat, suspense-laden thriller.

The_Post_(film).pngBut that’s not to say it is undeserving of the nominations and awards it has garnered thus far, or that because it checks off all those boxes, it automatically gets award nods. I found myself invested by the plot of this film, especially knowing that it is rooted in true events of American history. There was a lot about the history of this era that I was unaware of, as American History classes in high schools today tend to shy away from events that might skew perceptions of our government. Each member of the cast delivers capable, if not career best performances; Streep, Hanks, and Bob Odenkirk in particular nail their roles. For her role as Katharine Graham, Streep is also nominated for Best Actress, and though she certainly deserves recognition – her emotional turmoil and struggle to assert her leadership is convincing and, at times, heartbreaking – I think a couple of other names in the Best Actress category turned in stronger performances this year.

Overall, The Post is a film worth watching and is one of the most socially and politically poignant films to come along in recent years, but in the race for Best Picture, it falls a little shy of the competition. Of all the nominees, I’d rank The Post the least likely to take home the gold on March 4th, but it’s still a solid entry and one of the top films of 2017.

Oscar Nominations:
Best Picture
Best Actress (Streep)

One and Done

In my experience as an avid movie watcher, I’ve seen several films that lack the rewatch-ability factor, which means (at least personally) they aren’t films that seem meant to be watched more than once. Of course, this varies by person, but here’s a list of films that I’ve only seen once and have 0% desire to see again, and my reasons why.

1.) Saving Private Ryan (1998)
This is a phenomenal film about the experience of WWII and a band of determined American soldiers who are attempting to find Private Ryan, the last remaining of four brothers, and send him home. This film is brilliant and was totally robbed of the Best Picture Oscar, but it isn’t an easy watch – the opening half-hour is especially gut-churning and difficult to watch for its graphic depiction of the events at Omaha Beach during the Normandy Invasion. I was too young to see this film in theaters and can’t imagine how hard it must have been for people to witness on the big screen, especially for veterans who were there during the actual events. The film is widely lauded as being accurate in its portrayal of violence and warfare, and though it is a memorable and marvelous work of film-making, and well-deserving of its enduring reputation, one viewing was enough for me.

2.) A Clockwork Orange (1971)
I was subjected to Stanley Kubrick’s dystopian adaptation of Anthony Burgess’s novel in a film class. It is a dark exploration into the idea of “ultra-violence” with an utterly baffling sociopathic protagonist who is involved in a variety of horrendous crimes, and is later subjected to horrendous punishments. But just because a number of bad things are depicted by this film does not mean it is a bad film. For the record, this film – as a work of art – is great. The acting is astounding, the depiction of society is thought-provoking, the imagery is stunning, and there are countless shocking and horrid moments that linger in the mind long after the film is done. It deserves the notoriety it garnered and the controversy it kicked up and remains a powerful film so many years later. I am glad to have seen it. But it is not enjoyable. And a lot of horrible things happen in it that I never want to see again. But man, it is a spectacle. If you are easily upset by violence, DO NOT WATCH.

3.) Eyes Wide Shut (1999)
Yeah… there’s a Kubrickian theme to this list. To be fair, he is one of my favorite directors, and there are many Kubrick films that I have seen/would see again, such as 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Shining, and Dr. Strangelove.  But Eyes Wide Shut, an erotic drama/thriller that features a sex cult, orgies, and young women being sold into prostitution was just too… bizarre, for me. Which is saying a lot, because I like weird films. It’s got great performances, and I have since enjoyed mocking the “I’M A DOCTOR!” line from Tom Cruise in my everyday life, but by the end of this film I was just… confused. I didn’t get what the film was trying to do, and, as a result, didn’t much like it or appreciate it, even though some critics lauded it as Kubrick’s best (to which I ask, have you ever seen 2001?). It’s one of Kubrick’s works that didn’t land for me, and I didn’t find that much to enjoy about it or glean from it. It didn’t help that I had to watch it in a class of my college peers, which was pretty uncomfortable (I’m fairly sure it was the uncut version, as well), and truth be told, though it has its merits, I am 100% happy to never watch this movie ever again, purely for the fact that I didn’t like it.

4.) Borat (2006)
I was actually forced to watch this film as a final for my Documentary film class in college, and I hated every single second of it. I do like Sacha Baron Cohen as an actor, but some of his roles are simply not my brand of humor. I’m sure some folks could watch Borat’s exploits in his green mankini and his generally offensive, occasionally racist, and always inappropriate humor over and over again and always find it funny, but I am not one of those folks, so Borat was definitely a one and done for me.

5.) The Revenant (2015)
I loved this movie when I saw it in theaters, and consider this unconventional western about survival and vengeance in an unexplored frontier one of the most impressive films in recent memory. The cinematography is stunning, the cast is amazing (Tom Hardy is so immersed he’s unrecognizable, and Leo got his long-deserved Oscar for his role) and the plot is engrossing, but it is a slog. The film feels as exhausting and grueling to the viewer as Hugh Glass’s journey through the wilderness is portrayed, from the bear attack to the self-soldering to the final showdown in the snow. That’s not a bad thing – if anything, it’s only more indicative of brilliant film-making – but it is not a film I have any desire to see again, because, as the title implies, the film remains with the viewer long after the credits have rolled, and I don’t need to see it again to remember how much of an impact it had on me. I can still recall the opening shot – that long, continuous take – fairly vividly, proof of just how powerful the film is and how it sticks in your memory.

6.) Grave of the Fireflies (1998)
UGH, the tears. I watched this film on a portable DVD player in the car on a 6 hour road trip, and I started ugly-crying in an Arby’s drive-thru when I got to the end. Easily one of the most powerful war-themed movies I’ve ever seen, and one of Studio Ghibli’s finest, Grave of the Fireflies shows the impact of WWII on a pair of young Japanese children, Seita and Setsuko. This movie is not for the faint of heart; the animation is beautiful, the story is equal parts moving and haunting, it wrenches the heartstrings in uncomfortable, yet important ways, and it shows a perspective of war that is far different from films that focus on valor and victory and rising against the odds to defeat the “bad guy.”  It’s difficult to imagine, after seeing both, that another film on this list (Saving Private Ryan) and this film technically take place during the same war. I highly recommend this film to anyone who is interested in the various perspectives on war and WWII in particular, but it’s definitely not one that I intend to watch over and over again.

7.) Un Chien Andalou (Andalusian Dog) (1929)
Look, an obscure title! I am a snob!
Anyway, I probably would watch this surrealist film again, but not in its entirety. As in, I never, ever want to see the eyeball cutting scene ever again. Ever. It is one of the worst things I have ever seen onscreen. The rest of it is worth examining again, though, because it’s really f*cking weird and it provokes a lot of thought. There’s a ton of artistic imagery and unique ideas presented in this film that are very cool and wonderfully bizarre, like a trip into some twisted version of the Twilight Zone. But if I ever do see it again, I am skipping the eyeball scene. Just trust me on this – if you are squeamish, DO NOT WATCH THIS FILM.

8.) Le Sang des bêtes (Blood of the Beasts) (1949)
Look! Another obscure film!
This film, which is an artistic exploration into the contrast between idyllic Parisian life and what happens within the walls of slaughterhouses is the main impetus behind my decision to convert to pescatarianism in 2013. I am no longer a pescatarian for health reasons, but the image of a cow being killed is forever imprinted in my brain thanks to this film. It’s a unique, 20-minute long juxtaposition of surrealist and realist imagery and seeing it left a profound impact on me. I’m glad I saw it, but never, ever want to see it again.



Film Review: Darkest Hour (2017)

Dir. Joe Wright
Starring: Gary Oldman, Kristin Scott Thomas, Lily James, Stephen Dillane, Ben Mendelsohn, etc.
Rating: PG-13
Runtime: 2hr 5min
Spoiler level: Minor

The moment I saw a screenshot of Gary Oldman as Winston Churchill some months ago, I knew I was going to see this movie. I had to travel an hour away to do it (drawbacks of small-town living) but Oldman’s Golden Globe win last Sunday solidified that his turn in Darkest Hour was a performance I didn’t want to miss on the big screen. Also, The Shape of Water isn’t playing within 50 miles of me, so…

dhFollowing Winston Churchill (Oldman) as he takes the mantle of Prime Minister in May 1940 with World War II brewing ominously on the mainland, Darkest Hour offers insight (both in public and behind closed doors) into Churchill’s first tenuous/strenuous days in office as he faces opposition and doubt from his fellow party members, the crown, and himself.

First things first; the cast is superb. Kristin Scott Thomas is great as Clementine Churchill, as she conveys the inner and outer struggle of a wife and her efforts to support her husband as he endures such intense scrutiny. Ben Mendelsohn (who I didn’t even recognize, a total fail on my part) does an excellent job expressing the turmoil of King George VI, who grapples with his opinion of Churchill and what is best for the nation as a whole as it faces the possibility of invasion. Lily James turns in a nuanced performance as Churchill’s personal secretary, Elizabeth Layton, and Stannis Baratheon Stephen Dillane’s determined and frustrated Halifax stands toe to toe with Oldman’s Churchill as he argues for appeasement over war. But obviously, the film is carried by Oldman, who delivers Churchill’s famous speeches with passion and fire, but also shows vulnerability as he is assailed by doubt and criticism from all sides, not to mention the looming war with the Axis Powers on the horizon. He plays off of the other key characters with aplomb, as the chemistry Oldman shares with Scott Thomas, while only shown in a few scenes, is an inspiring look into the strengths and strains of an enduring marriage, while Oldman’s scenes with Mendelsohn evolve over the course of the film as their interactions go from tension-riddled and uncertain to tempered hostility to grudging respect and beyond. Hearing the “We shall fight them on the beaches,” speech coming from Oldman is electrifying, as his words build in intensity and fervor and serve as a contrast to those poignant flickers of uncertainty and wavering confidence he suffers while debating whether or not to enter peace negotiations with the monster threatening to invade and conquer.

One of the film’s main strengths is that it isn’t a wide-spanning look at Churchill’s life and career, sprawling over the course of several years; it’s a snapshot centered on Churchill’s earliest days in office, which encompasses only a few weeks and culminates in the evacuation at Dunkirk. This lends the film a greater sense of focus and a deeper look into Churchill’s mindset and emotional state, and permits a greater exploration into the opinions of those around him, particularly Halifax and Chamberlain. It doesn’t seek to show Churchill’s entire legacy in two hours, and the result is a more intimate film with a greater focus on the gravity of his decisions and their possible consequences, rather than a blustering epic about his greatness with no time to breathe in-between scenes. The pacing is a bit dodgy at times, but the film also strives to show the criticism that Churchill faced during his tenure and references some of his more controversial actions, including the Gallipoli Campaign, which provides a somewhat more “balanced” portrayal of the historical icon, rather than a 2-hour lovefest.

Darkest Hour also shines on a technical level, as the cinematography, lighting, sound (including Dario Marianelli’s score) and direction are stellar, and all components function together to make a visually (and audibly) beautiful film. Certain shots and sequences are framed and shot in such a evocative, visceral way, it gives even more weight to whatever is happening onscreen at the time. Lots of great “hallway” shots and tracking shots, and one particular shot of Churchill in an elevator shows the perfect image of a man who feels utterly “alone” not only physically, but in his convictions. Plus, I’d be shocked if Tsuji and team don’t win the Oscar for Makeup and Hairstyling (Sorry, Beauty & The Beast), as Gary Oldman’s galvanizing performance is enhanced by the amazing physical transformation he undergoes to become one of the most well-known and revered figures in British history.

One of Darkest Hour‘s taglines is also one of Churchill’s most famous phrases, “Never surrender.” And though those famous words have been heard countless times, and WWII has been depicted repeatedly on screens of all sizes, Darkest Hour is a semi-unconventional “war” film that brings something fresh and new to the table in offering a closer look into Winston Churchill’s life and legacy, his personal and professional relationships, and his unwillingness to give in, even when facing such grave odds and innumerable doubts.

P.S. I might suggest this film and Christopher Nolan’s 2017 film Dunkirk as a double feature, though viewing both films back-to-back could be pretty draining… though you could start off with Tom Hooper’s 2010 Oscar-winner The King’s Speech, for a bit of levity.


Expectations vs. Reality

Last week, I went into Star Wars: The Last Jedi knowing nothing save for the scenes included in the two trailers. Sure, after three viewings of The Force Awakens in 2015 I had concocted some theories about what was going to happen in the next installments. Though I’ve never been an active member of the fandom (as in, I don’t participate in any discussions online, but I am a big-time lurker on forums and such) I had a general knowledge of some of the more intense fan theories, and had a few ideas of my own rattling around about Rey’s parents, Supreme Leader Snoke’s true identity, what the return of Luke Skywalker would entail, and all the other questions that have been plaguing both die-hard and casual fans for the last couple of years.

Though some of my theories were wrong, a couple were confirmed, and some remain unanswered, I genuinely loved The Last Jedi. I had a couple of quibbles with it as far as the plot goes (no spoilers) but all in all, I felt that it was a strong film with excellent performances and some moments and scenes that I consider the best to ever feature in a SW film.  So, when I broke my social media ban and discovered that a vocal part of the fandom had major issues with the film (to the point of making a petition to have it struck from the canon, apparently) I was surprised. I mean, last I checked, the RT score for the critics was hovering in the low 90’s, but the audience score is in the 50’s, even lower than all, or most, of the prequels. Reading through the litany of complaints and the diatribes about all the things that “went wrong” with the film, I do see and understand how folks didn’t like it. Obviously not everyone is going to love a film – I know folks who didn’t like TFA, either, so I’m not trying to invalidate those who genuinely didn’t like TLJ. But with such a polarizing reaction to a film with such a passionate, dedicated fan base (for the better and the worse) behind it, It leads me to wonder; how much do our expectations of something color our opinion of it once we experience the reality? Does over-hype and rampant speculation lead to lukewarm reception?

I mean, I may not actively participate in the SW fandom, and my experience with the media outside of the films (novels, comics, the EU stuff, etc) is limited, but I am invested in it nonetheless. But there are folks out there (not a criticism, btw – I admire people with this level of dedication so long as it doesn’t interfere with life) who spend a lot of time to crafting theories or speculating about what is to happen next in a galaxy far, far away. So obviously, these die-hard fans might have crafted some theories or grown attached to ideas about TLJ and the new characters and plots in the SW universe that Rian Johnson and the creative crew behind the film have effectively taken a lightsaber to.  But just because it isn’t what fans expected, does that necessarily mean it’s “bad?” Or is it just a jarring contrast between expectations and reality that sours the experience for some fans? And while that perspective is valid – and people levying criticism at the film are justified – I think it’s important to separate folks who simply didn’t like the film from people who claim TLJ is “bad” because it didn’t go the way they thought it would.

Game of Thrones is another prominent fandom that suffers from this expectations versus reality mentality, and it makes me dread the reaction to season 8, which is pretty much guaranteed to debut before GRRM releases the final book. Fans of both the show and the books have grown so invested in the character journeys and the overall story and for years have come up with countless theories about “Azor Ahai” and who will marry who and who the “valonqar” is that I cannot fathom an ending that will satisfy everyone. There will be backlash, no matter what, because folks are attached to certain pieces of speculation that, if proven false, might affect the way viewers will perceive the ending. I think there are so many theories that if none of them turn out to be true (as unlikely as that is, a good number of them are going to turn out to be nonsense) a certain strain of fan will be incredibly disappointed. But it’s the nature of the fandom beast.  I know how I want the story to end, and which pieces I want to fall into place, but even if it doesn’t go the way I’ve theorized it would, that doesn’t mean I’m going to write it off as “bad.”

The closest I’ve come to this mentality this year was when Justice League came out a couple of months ago. After the resounding success of Wonder Woman, I was all in for JL, expecting the DCEU to finally turn itself around and prove that it can produce a well-balanced, engrossing ensemble film… which didn’t exactly happen. I did make the mistake of looking at the RT score beforehand, which dampened my excitement. I still enjoyed it, and it had some compelling strengths, but my expectations definitely weren’t met; and yes, that’s disappointing. That’s not the easiest thing to stomach, as a fan who is attached to the characters and the lore. But there’s nothing else to do but accept it, appreciate the good parts, and continue to have optimism for the future.

Honestly, the more popular something becomes, the more passionate and dedicated the fanbase is, and the more disappointed fans are bound to be with the outcome of the next installment, whether it be a book or film or episode. It’s the double-edged sword of popularity and fandoms, and the intrinsic nature of the idea that “you can’t please everyone.” But “different” doesn’t have to mean a “let down,” and “unexpected” shouldn’t automatically equate with “disappointment.” Unless it’s the finale of How I Met Your Mother, because that was straight up garbage and I literally can’t even watch reruns anymore without the shadow of that disaster looming overhead.

That’s why I’m more grateful than ever that I went into The Last Jedi with virtually no expectations and no idea what to expect, because I had no preconceived notions or outside opinions of the film to color my experience while watching. I may have had some theories kicking around in my head, but I was not so attached to any particular outcome or potential theory confirmation that I was disappointed when the reality strayed from how I’d imagined it would go. I have hopes for the future of the franchise and Episode IX, a spark that will not be snuffed out, but I don’t let my hopes get so high that they will inevitably come crashing to the ground and shatter when the outcome is unexpected.

This is my last post of the year; we’ll kick off January with a new Manga Monday!

If you’re in need of a new read, or need something to spend your holiday money on, check out my YA novel, I’m With You! The ebook is only $1.99 or (£1.55) and paperback is $9.99 (£7.99) on Amazon Amazon UK.  Paperback is also $9.99 on

Do Trailers Ruin Movies?

Over the last few months, I have been actively avoiding any movie trailers or clips for the upcoming Star Wars: The Last Jedi, in an attempt to avoid spoilers. I won’t be seeing it until Christmas Eve, per family tradition, so I try to avoid as much info as possible until I finally get to view it on the big screen. That all blew out the window when I went to see Thor: Ragnarok and it was too inconvenient for me to leave the theater when a Star Wars trailer began, so I just sucked it up and allowed myself to be dazzled.

Though the trailer hinted at some things, made some allusions, and showed what are sure to be key moments, it didn’t reveal anything groundbreaking or show anything too spoilerific. It created intrigue without making anything too obvious, and made me all the more excited to see the film later this month. That is what a trailer should do; it should generate interest and lure audiences without blowing all the important info or all the humor in a 2 minute teaser. You shouldn’t be able to guess the entire plot of a film from a trailer, unless it’s a series you are already familiar with or you’ve read the book an upcoming movie is based on.

On the other hand, I recently saw the first trailer for the upcoming Downsizing, starring Matt Damon, and was instantly compelled to see it. The trailer presented a unique and interesting plot, showed some humor, and offered images and clips that made me wonder how characters got into a certain situation or what would happen next. And then the second trailer came along tacked onto Murder on the Orient Express, and it totally gives away what I perceived to be a pretty major plot point, which was not presented in the initial trailer. It dampened my enthusiasm a bit, as it allowed more pieces of the plot to fall into place, and chased away some of the allure. I’ll still see it when it comes out, but I was bummed to have something spoiled in the trailer that I wish I could have seen for the first time during the film itself. The same thing happened with the second Spider-Man: Homecoming trailer. Watching it, I felt like I could predict the entire movie, and I ended up being pretty close, though, thankfully, it was still a great film and I was not disappointed. Films can often fall into the trap of having too many trailers, as well, and I hold the belief that a film only needs 2 trailers max, and 1 will typically suffice. If I’m not drawn in by the first trailer, I probably won’t be swayed by another.

Trailers can be deceptive, as well – they can show a snapshot that is nothing like the completed picture, and effectively “trick” viewers, for the better or the worse. Trailers for Zack Snyder’s films are some of the best out there – I can still imagine just about every frame of the brilliant Watchmen trailer in my head, almost a decade later – but his films tend to have a polarizing reaction. Regardless, the trailers make you want to see his movies. 2012’s Brave offered a trailer that made the movie seem like it would follow a certain narrative, but it went off in a direction that my best friend and I totally didn’t see coming, and it was a pleasant surprise.

Trailers also make me not want to see movies, sometimes. I’m a big fan of the original Jumanji, and was skeptical of the remake/sequel, but when I saw the first trailer, I was tentatively hooked. There were some decent jokes and it looked like, if not a direct successor, a spiritual successor to the original. Since the first time I saw the trailer, I have  now seen it 5 or 6 times, and the second trailer 3 times. I’m kind of burned out on it, at this point, and I can probably quote the entire thing. “I’m an overweight middle-aged man!” “We’re in other people’s bodies!” “I’m missing the top two feet of my body!” Again, if the reviews are okay, I’ll probably still make the effort to see it, but I’m now worried that the funniest moments are all in the trailer, as is often the case. I’ve got The Greatest Showman, TLJ, and a few others to see before it, and it I must suffer through the trailer again, I might shelve my Jumanji plans until it’s available for streaming. Oversaturation can, unintentionally, kill the interest in a movie instead of building it up. I felt the same about last year’s lackluster Warcraft film. I saw the trailer every time I saw an IMAX film for months, and all it did was make me not want to see the movie. I actually did leave a theater after the Warcraft trailer began for what must have been the 10th time, and that remains the only time I have ever left a theater during the previews. I LOVE previews, but I hated that trailer, though Transformers: The Last Knight sure gave it a run for its money this past year. If I so much as see an Autobot onscreen, it is an insta-groan.

So that creates a question; do trailers ruin movies? After all, the big wigs behind a film’s production have no idea how many times you are going to be forced to see a trailer. They just want to put butts in seats. But they do have control over how much info goes into a trailer, and it’s a fine line; give too much away and risk scaring people off, or don’t offer up enough and fail to hook viewers. Avoid trailers, and you might fall behind on what movies are coming out, unless you monitor them religiously (as I do). I may love previews, and eagerly anticipate trailers for films and film series that I’m a fan of, but nothing ruins a movie for me like a trailer rife with spoilers.



If you’re in need of a new read, check out my YA novel, I’m With You! The ebook is only $1.99 or (£1.55) and paperback is $9.99 (£7.99) on Amazon Amazon UK.  Paperback is also $9.99 on